2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 2

[ Page 13269 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I'm very happy to introduce to the House today, visiting for the first time from my riding and in the gallery with us, a long-time, life-long Richmond-Steveston resident and my constituency assistant, Matt Pitcairn. Would the House please make him very welcome.

D. Routley: I have quite a list of introductions here. The first group are visiting us from Cowichan Lodge. They are friends. They are residents. They are people concerned about the potential closure of that facility.

First off, the two lawyers who have represented the families — Gary Caroline and Joanna Gislason; then the residents and their families — Tom Gordon, Don Gordon, Joan Hayden-Luck, Audrey Lyon, Bob Batty, Jean Batty, Patty McNamara, Karlene Bara, Betty Iverson, Anne Wilkinson, Tanya Berends, Marion Johnson. Will the House please help me make these people welcome as they come to see about the future of Cowichan Lodge.

I also have three other people to introduce. They are from a group called the Mid-Island Sustainable Stewardship Initiative. This is a group that seeks to find local solutions to environmental issues and represent those issues to local government and other officials. They are Jack Anderson, and Lavonne and Nick Dunning. Please help me make them welcome to the House.

[1335]

Hon. M. Polak: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce my administrative assistant Keira Warren. Keira joined our team in September, and she's doing an absolutely fabulous job. We hope she stays with us for a long time. This is her first time in the gallery. Would the House please make her very welcome.

J. Brar: Visiting us today are concerned seniors and their family members from Surrey. We have with us Ron and Sharon Johnson. They have a family member at Zion Park Manor care home. Her name is Eva Cole — mother of Sharon and Grace. She will be 105 on December 8. Certainly, any move for her will be painful.

We also have with us Sharon Thomas. The family member they have at the care home is Jackie Thomas, Sharon's husband.

We have with us Lynda Court. Lynda is an LPN at Zion Park care home.

We also have with us Ray Pierce. The family member they have at the Zion Park Manor care home is Muriel Pierce, a 78-year-old senior.

We also have with us Pam Bozlovitch, and the family member at Zion Park is Pearl Stolar.

So I would ask all the members of this House to please make them feel welcome to this House.

D. MacKay: On Sunday when I went to the Smithers Airport to come down to Victoria, I couldn't help but notice this very attractive young lady in the airport terminal building. As it turned out, we sat beside each other on the way down on the flight. She actually fell asleep, and her head was resting on my shoulder. It gets better. I've seen quite a bit of her the last couple of days, and I noticed she's sitting in the chamber today. I would like the House to please welcome my daughter Laura MacKAY to the chamber.

G. Gentner: It is a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House Laurie Harris, Dennis Harris and Milton Samis. They are the family of Joy Harris, who is now a resident at Zion Park Manor. They are residents of Cloverdale-Surrey, and they're here to voice their concern relative to the loss of beds.

Laurie's mother Joy has been transferred from Surrey Memorial Hospital, where the family says she received somewhat terrible care. Joy has had several infections and is very happy at Zion Park and would like to stay there. Hopefully, the House can make Laurie, Dennis and Milton welcome.

Also in the gallery is Jacquie Woods. Jacquie is a resident of Surrey, British Columbia. She has a family member at Zion Park Manor, Margaret Anderson, who is her mother — 92 years of age. Margaret suffers from heart and health problems. She's been at Zion Park for five weeks, and she is very concerned about losing her place of residence. Can the House please make Jacquie Woods welcome.

Also in the gallery today, we have Diane Kineshanko, George McArter, Shirley Patriquin and Coby VanDam. They are the sisters and brothers of Bernis McArtur — mother to Diane and George — who is 92 years of age. Coby VanDam is Bernis's previous caretaker. Bernis has lived in Zion Park Manor since 2007. She feels she's being forced to leave her home and that she has no choice. So the family is here to voice their concern. Hopefully, the House will make them welcome.

Finally, it's a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House my CA, Cheryl Seale. She's a welcome addition to my staff and has been so since September. So can the House please make her welcome.

Tributes

VANCOUVER ISLAND RAIDERS

R. Cantelon: B.C. football fans take heart. There was no Grey Cup, but on November 8 the Vancouver Island
[ Page 13270 ]
Raiders crushed the Burlington Braves 35-8 for their second championship in two years. Andrew Harris ran for over 410 yards, and on one draw play, he was later found in downtown Toronto before they finally caught up with him.

[1340]

So let's congratulate this outstanding group of athletes, their owner Hadi Abassi and Coach Blokker for their outstanding achievements.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: I have also a number of introductions to make today. In the House we have Marion Friesen and her friend Michelle Whitehouse. Marion is a staff member at Zion, and we have Donna and Wendy Budzan. They have their father, 77-year-old Ted, at Zion Park. We also have Diane Brown and Calvin Mitchell. They have their father, a 91-year-old, at Zion Park. We also have Doreen McCulloch. Her husband, Ted, is also a resident at Zion Park.

They're all here to bring a message to all of us in this House to keep Zion Park open, because everyone loves it to be there. Please make them welcome.

B. Ralston: I, too, would like to introduce some members who are here as part of the Zion Park delegation — Len and Rita Friesen, Alice and Jerry Waddington, Linda Buchwald and Lorraine Yacey. I'd also like to add that today is Lorraine's birthday.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd like to introduce to the House Ms. Shaina Jukes, who is the newest member of the staff in my ministry office. It's always a delight for all of us on both sides of this House to have these wonderful young people come and work with us. Would you please give Shaina Jukes a warm welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: Three recent visitors to the gallery are from the province of Alberta. They are Janet Lore, Janie Dale and Georgia Dale. All were here to visit Grace Lore, who is a former legislative intern. She did great work as a legislative intern and is now, I'm pleased to say, an excellent research officer here at the Legislature. Would all members of the House please welcome her guests.

A. Dix: I wanted to introduce Jim Ferris, Darlene Lasko and Marie Piercey. They're here with the group from Zion Park and in the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. I would ask all members of the House to make them welcome.

S. Hammell: I stand to also make some introductions of people who are over here from Zion Manor. I'd like to introduce Leona Gamache. She's here on behalf of her mother, Mary. I'd like to introduce Rick and Judy Rhuelen, and they are here on behalf of Madge Matheson, Judy's mother.

I'd like to introduce Leona Borsa and Janis Rath. They're here because Dennis Maughan, Leona's spouse, is at Zion Manor. Also, Bob and Joan Hall are there for Darene Oglieve and Dee Baker, who is a staff member, to introduce Kay Noonan, who is a COSCO member, and Ernie Bayer, who is a COSCO member. All of these people are here on behalf of the effort to keep Zion Park Manor open.

Tributes

DENISE DURAND-HUTCHINSON

J. Horgan: I rise today to inform the House of the courage and service…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …of a former colleague, Denise Durand-Hutchinson. Denise, 52 years old, has worked in the public service of British Columbia for 16 years. She began as a clerk, and her abilities clearly shone through, and she rose to management. She considers her time in the public service among her greatest sources of pride. Denise was one of those public servants that assist governments in transition, and she's very proud to say that she's worked for three Premiers and three deputies to the Premiers covering both sides of this House.

[1345]

It's a tribute to her abilities that she could demonstrate non-partisanship and professionalism right up to the end, as today she is fighting inflammatory breast cancer very bravely, as all women do. She's joined at hospice today with her husband Tim, her daughters Kristen and Nicole and her son Brandon. Her co-workers have provided her with a laptop today, hon. Speaker and Members, so that she could watch us pay tribute to her and many like her who give their youth and vitality to the service of British Columbia.

Members, would you please join me in thanking Denise and her family for her contribution to the province of British Columbia.

S. Hawkins: I, too, would like to join the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca in expressing our support for Denise and her family. Denise Durand-Hutchinson has served this province and the government as a dedicated public servant. She's been fighting a courageous battle, and I know every member of this House and everyone in the precincts will be sending her our best wishes, our prayers, and our love to her and her family at this very challenging time.
[ Page 13271 ]

Statements (Standing Order 25b)

ACTIVISM AGAINST GENDER VIOLENCE

C. Trevena: Today marks the first of 16 days of activism against gender violence. It's an international campaign which bridges today, the international day against violence against women, through to December 10, International Human Rights Day. These 16 days encompass other internationally recognized days which impact women and violence against women, including International Women Human Rights Defenders Day, World AIDS day, and the anniversary of the Montreal massacre.

This year, the theme for the 16 days of activism is "Human rights for women, human rights for all" — an acknowledgment that this is also the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think it allows us to take a wider perspective of the violence inflicted on women by having no security in their human rights — women who are more likely to be living in poverty and women who are struggling.

Last week B.C. and Canada were criticized yet again by the United Nations for not living up to their commitments under the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women. B.C. was singled out in this report, again, for the impact of cuts in financial support to civil legal aid for low-income women, and Canada was criticized for cancelling the court challenges program, which allowed women access to procedures which review alleged violations of the right to equality.

The committee also raised the cuts to social assistance, which have had a disproportionate impact on single mothers, aboriginal women, immigrant women and the elderly who rely on such assistance. The convention on the elimination of discrimination against women is binding on all governments who've signed it, including their provinces, and as such, we are all obliged to implement it.

A commitment to women, a commitment to reduce poverty, a commitment to child care and a commitment to provide access to legal aid would be a good start and would be an honourable approach to the 16 days of activism against gender violence.

BURNABY BOARD OF TRADE AND
ASIA-PACIFIC INITIATIVES

R. Lee: I had the opportunity last Wednesday to be a keynote speaker at the Burnaby Board of Trade Asia-Pacific networking event, where I highlighted the many opportunities to expand our connection to Asia.

Today three of the world's four largest economies — China, Japan and India — are in Asia. Despite the current global economic uncertainty, countries like China and India are still experiencing phenomenal growth. This represents a huge opportunity for us to seize on British Columbia's advantages.

The Burnaby Board of Trade is one organization in my community which has taken notice of this opportunity unique to B.C. Its Pacific gateway committee has the overarching mission to promote trade, investment, education and cultural exchanges. The chair is Michael Hwang of Hwang and Co. Other members include Thomas Tam, Teong Sin Kwek, Darlene Gering, Dr. Clinton Lee, Jonathan Luk, Don Enns, Garth Evans, Anne Chen, Richard Singal, Yama Yamazaki, May Ma, Carmelita Tapia, Lam Ngo, Gina Hansen, Michael Leong and Violet Chan.

[1350]

The Pacific gateway committee, realizing that doing business in a foreign country can be a puzzling and stressing experience, has met that challenge by initiating the cultural navigators project and appointing gateway ambassadors. This unique program uses the knowledge of these ambassadors to be a resource of local customs, cultural protocols and business etiquette.

The ambassadors are Burnaby Board of Trade members who have first-hand knowledge of the business environment in the Asia-Pacific region and can help prepare for overseas business trips. I'm glad that organizations like the Burnaby Board of Trade are working to support ties with the Asia-Pacific region.

I'm sure the House will agree with me that encouraging investment from and to the Asia-Pacific represents a huge opportunity for our province.

MID-ISLAND SUSTAINABLE
STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE

D. Routley: I'm rising today to speak about a group called MISSI, the Mid-Island Sustainable Stewardship Initiative. This group grew organically, one might say, out of local concerns for local issues, but they're taking local action and seeking global outcomes.

The Vancouver Island reality is one of heavy residential development that has strained our resources — our water, our farmland, our energy and our forest lands. Our food security is in great peril. Only 30 years ago, over 80 percent of the perishable produce consumed on Vancouver Island was grown on Vancouver Island. Now it's said that that's down below 5 percent. There are land use issues, and those are the key issues.

How has MISSI answered the call? They've promoted and implemented sustainable community objectives. They are working for a biosphere reserve status for the area. They assemble local ideas and perspectives concerning land use, growth and development, ecological systems, habitat requirements and community requirements. They formulate consensus and preferences for land use. They educate local communities on sustainable uses of land, water, air, and food security,
[ Page 13272 ]
pollution and climate change. They represent local perspectives to relevant authorities.

I'd like us all to celebrate MISSI, this local, independent, grassroots group that seeks to protect the environment, the lifestyle, and the community well-being of Vancouver Island. MISSI is a beacon to other organizations in other communities. They are acting locally for global benefit. Let's celebrate the Mid-Island Sustainable Stewardship Initiative.

RICHMOND STUDENT
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

J. Yap: It's said that the youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow. I'm sure all colleagues in this chamber would agree that this is more than a well-worn cliché but, in fact, the truth.

With this in mind, I was delighted to see leadership among our youth in Richmond in full display at the recent Richmond Student Leadership Conference held at Palmer Secondary School in Richmond on the weekend of November 8. This unique conference, the 11th annual, had over 800 participants, with delegates ranging from grades 6 to 12, and the theme was "The Hero Within."

What makes this conference remarkable is that it has always been and continues to be completely organized by students for students, with leadership development the goal. The students received encouragement and guidance from Ms. Wendy Lim and Mr. Glenn Kishi, directors of learning services at Richmond's board of education. The 110 students on the planning committee did an incredible job. This was obvious from the abundance of smiles and the hundreds of positive testimonials received at the end of the conference.

The member for Richmond East and I were given the opportunity to present two workshops on the power of youth, and our primary message was to encourage young people to inform themselves in public policy and to be heard on election day by casting a ballot. We also discussed various ways in which young people can be further encouraged to participate in our democratic system. Other conference workshop topics included sustainability, building community, and volunteerism, to name a few.

I ask all members to join me in thanking Wendy Lim and Glenn Kishi, as well as the student organizers who made this event so possible. In particular, I commend the following student leaders for their leadership: Ariel Fan, Gary Leung, Natalie Suen, and Joanne Yen.

I also would encourage other boards of education around the province to consider such a conference to further help our youth to prepare to become the leaders of tomorrow.

[1355]

BURQUITLAM LIONS CLUB

D. Thorne: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the Burquitlam Lions Club, which has served the residents of Coquitlam with distinction for many years. The club is well known more recently for its role in building and operating two seniors facilities — the L.J. Christmas Manor and the Burquitlam Lions Care Centre.

In 1969 the Burquitlam Lions Club took on their first very worthy project when they started the Jimmy Christmas Hamper fund to provide food and gifts for needy families at Christmas. The fund was named after Coquitlam's mayor at that time: J.L. Christmas, known as Jimmy Christmas.

For 39 years club volunteers have registered hamper recipients, solicited and collected food items and gifts, and arranged to purchase turkeys and fresh produce. Each hamper is made up individually with toys and gifts chosen to fit the receiving family. A few days before Christmas a crew of volunteers deliver the hampers to hundreds of Coquitlam homes.

Larry Fleming has been the guiding force of the hamper fund since its inception. However, Larry told me recently that this will be the last year for the Jimmy Christmas Hamper fund. In the future, Christmas hampers in Coquitlam will be organized by the SHARE Family and Community Services Society, which already provides this service to neighbouring municipalities.

On behalf of the citizens of Coquitlam and this House, I want to thank Larry Fleming and the Burquitlam Lions Club for their outstanding service to our community. I know that thousands of families who have received food and gifts at Christmas over the past 39 years will always remember their dedication and generous spirit.

INTERNATIONAL DAY
FOR THE ELIMINATION
OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

K. Whittred: I also rise today to speak about International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Women around the world and in B.C. are subject to many forms of abuse: sexual assault, domestic violence and oppression. The scale and true nature of the issue is often hidden.

In 1999, the United Nations General Assembly designated November 25 as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This year in British Columbia local organizations are partnering with the crime prevention division of the criminal justice branch to host events to mark this important day by launching 16 days of activism to end violence against women. These 16 days include the National Day of Remembrance and conclude with International Human Rights Day.

In my community of North Vancouver we have many outstanding organizations that I want to acknowledge:
[ Page 13273 ]
the B.C. Centre for Elder Advocacy and Support, who worked tirelessly to eliminate violence against seniors; the North Shore Women's Centre; the North Shore Crisis Services Society; the North Shore Adults at Risk Support Network; the Family Services of the North Shore; and the Elizabeth Fry Society. All of them seek to raise awareness of this issue of violence against women and provide services to those in need.

I particularly want to commend young women from my local high schools who each year organize a march. They start at the top of Lonsdale with candles, march all the way down to the waterfront, and the event culminates with dramatic presentations at Waterfront Park. Along with the work done by these courageous citizens and these very, very courageous and foreseeking young people, we can all be part of the solution.

Oral Questions

LONG-TERM CARE BEDS
AT ZION PARK MANOR

C. James: Today we're joined in the gallery by Darlene Lasko. Darlene's 93-year-old mother Nell is a resident of Surrey's Zion Park Manor seniors care home. When Nell suffered a stroke in 2007, the family was told that she didn't have long to live, but today Nell is alive and well. The doctors said a big reason she did survive is the good-quality care she gets at Zion Park.

So when the government decided to close 71 beds at the facility, Nell and her family were devastated. Today they join the relatives of 70 other seniors whose families are also being forced to face moves.

[1400]

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he please explain to Nell, her family and the other senior citizens who are here today, who had to come all the way to Victoria to get the minister to listen, why they're being forced out of Zion Park Manor?

Hon. G. Abbott: Invariably, these are difficult issues. I know from personal experience that transitions can be a very difficult issue for both residents and families. That's why, for each and every one of the residents of Zion Park Manor, there will be individualized care plans that will ensure that transition is undertaken in the most sensitive and sympathetic way possible.

But one of the things that the Leader of the Opposition said that is incorrect is that it was the decision of the government of British Columbia. That is not true; that is false. Zion Park Manor is not owned by the government of British Columbia. It is not owned by the Fraser Health Authority. It is owned by the Lutheran Senior Citizens Housing Society. They are the ones that have made the difficult decision that one wing of their facility should be closed. They have made that decision based on their assessment of the facility, the issues that require remediation, and they have made that decision.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's no surprise to me that I see the Minister of Health standing up and pointing fingers somewhere else, trying to blame the society…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …for closing down beds when it's this government that won't give the society the support they need to continue providing good quality care for seniors in this province.

It makes no sense to anyone that this government would look at closing down beds at a time when we have more seniors and fewer beds for those seniors. This minister needs to actually admit that the seniors care and the crisis we have are a direct result of this government refusing to build the 5,000 long-term care beds that they promised to seniors in British Columbia.

The people in this gallery are people. They're the human faces behind the numbers that the minister likes to throw around. These are real people and real families, and they had to come all the way to Victoria to try and get someone on this other side to actually pay attention to them.

So again to the Minister of Health: will he commit today, in the presence of all of these individuals, to keep those beds open at Zion Manor?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think what is sad and unfortunate are the lengths to which the Leader of the Opposition will go to distort and manipulate in this situation. I think this is very, very sad.

At no point — and I want to emphasize this — has the government of British Columbia, the Ministry of Health Services or Fraser Health blamed the operators. The Lutheran Senior Citizens Housing Society have been excellent operators. They — not FHA, not the government — have made the decision to close those units. They have looked at the remediation required for those units. They've looked at the fact that 586 brand-new units will be opening up within 20 minutes of Zion Park Manor in the months ahead. They do not buy the NDP's recipe for decay.

And a final point: 5,424 residential care and assisted-living units opened since 2001 in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

[1405]
[ Page 13274 ]

C. James: The society wants to keep the beds open. The families want to keep the beds open. The seniors living in those beds want to keep the facility open. What doesn't the minister get about keeping Zion Manor open?

The fact is that the minister knows that assisted-living beds are not the same as residential care beds, and they have still not the built the 5,000 long-term care beds they promised to seniors in this province.

At a time when this government should be providing support to seniors, all we get from this minister is more bluster, trying to confuse people and refusing to stand up for seniors.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Zion Manor isn't the only facility that is facing this. We have facilities up and down Vancouver Island, all across British Columbia, that are facing the same kinds of pressure. In fact, in the Fraser health region alone, 3,800 seniors face a similar fate because of this government.

So again to the Minister of Health: will he stand up and tell these families that they can keep the beds at Zion Park Manor?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again I have to advise the Leader of the Opposition that she is absolutely wrong. It is not a decision of the Fraser Health Authority; it is not a decision of the government of British Columbia. It is a decision by the operators, who have been excellent operators. It is their decision that they wish…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …over the next nine months to transition to the closure of one wing of their facility.

But perhaps it's not surprising that the opposition have some difficulty understanding the challenges of transition. During the 1990s there weren't many opportunities for transition. Over the entire ten years they were only able to add 1,400 units to British Columbia. Fraser Health alone has added more than 1,400 units, and across British Columbia today I am proud to say that we have added 5,424 residential care and assisted-living units.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Gentner: It's obvious that the person who is responsible for this is the person who should be looking in the mirror himself, and that's the minister.

The minister talks about transition. Obviously, with the response from this government, the only real transition that matters will be on May 12, 2009. That's the transition we're going to be looking for.

The minister did not answer the questions by the Leader of the Opposition, but I will try to get at the question again. The situation at Zion Park Manor is just a fraction of the crises facing the Fraser health region and all the province. The families in the gallery gathered here today are here to demand answers, and the minister has to stop running away.

We've heard conflicting arguments. We heard an argument that they're going to shut down the facility in January. Then we heard it was going to be July. Then we have the member for Surrey-Cloverdale suggest that the residents can stay there as long as they want until they choose to leave. But these residents and their families gathered here to tell the minister that they want to stay.

My question to the Minister of Health: why won't he honour these seniors and just let them stay in their homes?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member's preface to his question gives you a pretty good idea of where his mind is at and where the NDP's mind is at on this question. This is all about politics. This is all about politics for the opposition. This is not about people. This is about politics. This is about a recipe from the NDP for decay.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: This is not about sensitivity in transformation. This is about politics from the start to the end.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1410]

Hon. G. Abbott: From the start to the present day, the operators of Zion Park Manor, Fraser Health Authority and the Ministry of Health Services have always been entirely clear about that. The transition is going to occur between the date that it was announced, about a month ago, through to July. Over that period we will be seeing 6,000 units, brand-new units up to standard, opening up within minutes of that facility.

Only the NDP would argue that people should stay in areas that don't meet standards when we have better facilities for them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
[ Page 13275 ]

AVAILABILITY OF LONG-TERM CARE BEDS

G. Gentner: Well, now we've clarified when the eviction notices are coming — January to July.

The Fraser Health Authority estimates that on any given day, there are 50 to 75 seniors in Surrey Memorial Hospital acute care beds awaiting relocation to other care facilities. This is endemic everywhere in this province — code purples in hospitals because of backlogs of seniors on waiting lists to find long-term care homes you are closing, Mr. Minister.

The Liberals' seniors policy is more than just being silly. It's affecting people. Indeed, it's just plain sinister. Why does this government persist in the falsehood of 5,000 beds? We know it's not true. Why does the Minister of Health continue to close beds when seniors are on long waiting lists to get in? Can the minister answer that? And please speak to the members in the gallery when you do so.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to discuss alternative level of care rates with the members. It's important, first of all, to note that when we took office, the wait-time for residential care was about one year. Today it is about three months across the province.

In Fraser Health Authority it is 22 days, a far cry from the one year when we took office. We have made, each and every year, progress with respect to ALC rates. Since 2001 we have seen ALC patient-days decline by 30 percent in this province — a 30 percent decline since 2001 in ALC rates. That contrasts, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: That contrasts to an increase of up to 128 percent between 1996 and 2001 — a sad, sad legacy of that NDP government.

CLOSING OF COWICHAN LODGE

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, it's really sad for the people who have gathered here. They hear their Health Minister talk about sensitivity. People are lost in these transitions. It's estimated that at least 10 percent will be lost as they're transferred from home to home. He doesn't care. He pushes forward his plan no matter what.

Cowichan Lodge, a seniors facility dear to the hearts of my constituents — they built it — is threatened with closure. The Minister of Housing and the Minister of Health promised, when they brought a private facility to our community, that it wouldn't mean the closure of public beds.

Well, we know how true that is now, don't we? In fact, they rushed to close Cowichan Lodge. They reduced the notice period from 12 months to two months. The families pushed back against this bully tactic, and they won. They won a reprieve, and yet the minister pushes on.

Will the minister respect those families? Will he stop trying to force them to move from Cowichan Lodge, and will he ensure that it remains open as our community wants it to?

[1415]

Hon. G. Abbott: It both surprises me and appals me how quickly this NDP opposition turns to attacking the dedicated public servants who work each and every day to try to ensure that, in fact, there is sensitivity in the transition. To attack the people who have worked so hard at the Fraser Health Authority, at the Vancouver Island Health Authority and throughout the province to see people make an appropriate transition from facilities that don't meet standards, which in fact the NDP came up with in the late 1990s — that they came up with in the 1990s….

They're attacking the health authorities and the operators in this province for trying to undertake sensitive transitions to superior facilities.

I don't know what it is about Cowichan Lodge that attracts the member. Is it insufficient interior space in common areas such as activity rooms? Is it spaces such as bathrooms that do not meet current requirements to accommodate mobility aids such as wheelchairs? Is it insufficient room sizes to accommodate equipment required in complex care? Is it narrow doorways which present access and evacuation risks? Is it the deficiencies in primary building systems? What is it that is so attractive to the member?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: That's an even more pathetic response than we've heard so far. This minister accuses us of blaming the health authority? In fact, the health authority announced the closure of Cowichan Lodge 48 hours after the closure of postings for those very same caregivers that he refers to. So they couldn't travel with their clients, and that makes that transition that much worse.

No amount of finger-pointing will do. This government always answers: "Next window. Someone else's fault; it's not us." Well, it is them. They made this decision. They're driving these decisions through their health authorities.

In the end, there's one person responsible for the care of seniors in this province. He's sitting right over there. He's the Health Minister. He will do nothing but try to evade that responsibility.

Since the families won that reprieve, bully tactics have been used to move their families out, their loved ones out. They're told, "Oh, if you don't move to the private facility" — where, by the way, the care is not as good and where, by the way, they don't have their Alzheimer's walk through the oak glen….
[ Page 13276 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: They're told that they will risk having their family members move far away from the community.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose the question, please.

D. Routley: In the end, they're asking through me: why doesn't he start listening to them?

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, please.

D. Routley: Why doesn't he listen to the families, and why won't he commit today to keeping Cowichan Lodge open?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am very proud of what we have achieved as a government since 2001. I am very proud of that. We have…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …added an incremental — that is, in addition to — 5,424 units of residential care and assisted living in this province. Not only have we seen an improvement quantitatively, but we've also seen a qualitative improvement.

Why the NDP wants to lock in to the standards of the 1990s, which was inaccessible washrooms to wheelchairs, why they would be content with inadequate dining and social facilities…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …why they would be content with facilities that lack the safety and security standards, I don't know. They'll have to explain that. But I'm very proud of what we've done as a B.C. Liberal government. I'll be glad to stand on that in the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

LONG-TERM CARE BEDS
AT ZION PARK MANOR

A. Dix: I think we can summarize the minister's position like this. He says that the BCMA is wrong when they say there's been a net closure of long-term care beds — a report in May of this year. He says the B.C. Care Providers are wrong when they say per-diem rates are a shambles in the Fraser Health Authority. He says the Auditor General is wrong when there's a lack of accountability in his ministry. He says the mayor of Surrey is wrong. He says that seniors who live at Zion Park are wrong. He says the seniors who live at Cowichan Lodge are wrong. He says the people of Surrey are wrong. The people of Cowichan are wrong. The families are wrong. The staff is wrong.

The only people who are right are him and the Minister of Transportation. This display of arrogance would just be Liberal business as usual if the stakes weren't so high for those seniors. Why doesn't he listen to somebody outside of the cabinet room and keep the beds at Zion Park open?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can tell you definitively who's wrong. It's that member and that pathetic opposition over there. That's who's wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: When we came into office in 2001, one of the realities that confronted the Ministry of Health of the day was that some 6,000 units required remediation in this province. They required remediation because there were narrow doorways, narrow hallways, multi-bed wards that did not meet even the contemporary standards of that day.

Since 2001 we have remediated those 6,000 units, and we have added an additional 5,424 units. Those over 11,000 units are not beds. These are not multi-bed wards that the NDP would add an additional bed to and call it a capacity increase. These are homes for British Columbians. These are homes, and we should be very proud of those 11,000 units.

A. Dix: Well, the minister earlier said how much he respected the people involved who run Zion Park lodge. At the same time he refers to the efforts to keep those 71 beds open as "a recipe of decay."

This level of disrespect is inconsistent with the reality at Zion Park lodge. The families who are here today can testify to the quality of care there. The seniors who I've met can testify to the quality of care there. So I ask the minister: why doesn't he join me or join the Minister of Transportation or join whoever he likes and go and visit
[ Page 13277 ]
Zion Park lodge, listen to the seniors involved and see if he feels the same way then about this incorrect and outrageous decision to close those 71 beds?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's actually Zion Park Manor rather than Zion Park lodge, but regardless….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know it's a petty detail reflecting the obvious interest of the member in this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: Petty detail — right? Just a small fact.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to just read for the member's knowledge briefly from the facilities report on Zion Park Manor. "The park terrace unit, including the elevator, is not secure. The standard is for each area to be secured and provide limited access to other areas of the building, given that the majority of residents have some form of dementia. Park terrace has sliding glass doors from each bedroom that open to a small balcony with inadequate railings and no security."

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Do the members not want to hear this?

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I guess you wouldn't want to be clouded by knowledge. That might change your view with respect to it.

"Wheelchair…."

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: "Wheelchair accessibility" — I'm continuing to quote here — "includes a five-foot turning radius to ensure that a resident in a wheelchair, with the assistance of one or two staff members, can access a toilet. The ensuite washrooms in these units do not meet this requirement. The bedroom and bathroom door widths are also below the expected standard of four feet and three feet."

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD
COVERAGE FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

C. Puchmayr: Last Sunday I joined firefighters, police officers, paramedics, families and friends of Patrick Glendinning, a Surrey firefighter who died of esophageal cancer. Unfortunately for Patrick and his family, they also had to fight the Workers Compensation Board in order for him to get what was due to him. Two weeks prior to his death his claim was finally accepted.

Firefighters like Patrick put their lives on the line for British Columbians every day, and they should be covered for the industrial diseases that they get while in the line of duty.

Will the Labour Minister ensure that esophageal cancer is added to the schedule so that firefighters and their families can concentrate on looking after the care of their loved ones, rather than fighting the Workers Compensation Board during these times of need?

Hon. I. Black: I believe it is fair to say that all members in this House on both sides extend their deepest sympathies to Capt. Patrick Glendinning's family at a very difficult time and so shortly following his funeral at the weekend.

This government has an excellent relationship with the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association. When they approached us, as they did, and asked us to put the first seven forms of cancer into law back in 2005, we did so. When they approached us again and asked that we add testicular cancer as well as lung cancer for non-smokers, we again agreed with them and have announced one and have the second piece in legislation at the moment.

There is no doubt that the professionals in the B.C. Fire Fighters put themselves in the line of harm every day for the safety of the people in this province. We respect them, and we respect the conversations that are forthcoming with respect to any other forms of cancer they wish to have covered.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Well, Ontario covers firefighters that are afflicted with esophageal cancer, and Manitoba is proceeding forward with it as well. So will the minister do the right thing and implement esophageal cancer on the schedule, and will he do so retroactively?

Hon. I. Black: There is a varying degree of coverage in the cancers across Canada, and we're very pleased that we rank among the highest in terms of the number
[ Page 13278 ]
of cancers that we cover on a presumptive basis for the firefighter community in British Columbia.

We came to the conclusions that we did with respect to, first of all, the first seven that this government put in place for the first time in history back in 2005, and subsequently our agreement to add two additional cancers — testicular as well as lung cancer for non-smokers….

We did so after sound analysis that is required to make such assessments. We have been approached informally by the B.C. Fire Fighters to talk about esophageal cancer. I look forward to those conversations. My door is open, and they know it.

JORDAN'S PRINCIPLE AND
FIRST NATIONS HOUSING

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, 12, 15 or 20 people living in a two- or three-bedroom house, black mould causing kids to get sick and houses condemned. This isn't a Third World country but a first nations reserve — Tsulquate, just outside of Port Hardy.

The housing situation there is in crisis. People who have been living in town can't afford the rents and move back to the reserve. Sixty children from the reserve are the responsibility of Ministry of Children and Families. Drugs and alcohol aren't the cause of the problems, but housing and poverty certainly are.

The government has committed to Jordan's principle. There shouldn't be any finger-pointing in this, and there shouldn't be any shrugging off of responsibility when it comes to children's health.

[1430]

So I would ask the Minister of Children and Families whether he is prepared to use Jordan's principle to act on behalf of those first nations children who deserve safe and healthy housing.

Hon. T. Christensen: This government is very proud that it is the first provincial government across all of Canada to commit to Jordan's principle — to ensuring that aboriginal children, whether they're on reserve or off reserve, are entitled to the same services that all children in our province should be entitled to if they have special needs, if they are struggling with different issues. So we continue to work with the federal government and with first nations across British Columbia to ensure that we can all be confident that we're meeting the needs of first nations children.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise to table a report in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, section 72(8), with respect to guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

C. James: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. James: I have a petition with 3,253 signatures gathered in four days asking that Zion Park receive funding from government so they can remain open.

D. Routley: I seek leave to present a petition.

I present a petition of 11,000 signatures gathered in the Cowichan Valley in an effort to keep Cowichan Lodge open. These signatures were gathered in a three-week period.

K. Conroy: I, too, have a petition of over 500 signatures from…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Conroy: …citizens throughout my constituency asking the government not to sell our water to private power interests.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I finally found the message box.

I ask permission to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, Member.

C. Evans: I rise to table 1,400 postcards from constituents in my constituency asking the government not to privatize their water and asking for a moratorium on independent power projects.

D. Cubberley: I have a petition here with 600 names collected at the Moss Street Market recently calling on the government to rescind the split-form classification process and to rescind the increased tax assessments for the year 2007 in my constituency.

D. Routley: I present hundreds of letters collected from my constituents and addressed to the Minister of Health and the Premier regarding Cowichan Lodge.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP OF
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move two motions which I have provided to the Opposition House Leader. One formalizes an agreement that we came to in August around staffing by members of the standing committees related to changes in personnel.
[ Page 13279 ]

[That the written agreement of August 17, 2008 between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader be ratified, setting forth that the following Members comprise the membership of the Select Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly for the 4th session of the 38th Parliament, effective August 17, 2008:

Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
Lorne Mayencourt (Convener), David Chudnovsky, Gary Coons, Scott Fraser, Al Horning, Harry Lali, Dennis MacKay, Val Roddick, Katherine Whittred, John Les

Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth
Ron Cantelon (Chair), Nicholas Simons (Deputy Chair), Jagrup Brar, Maurine Karagianis, Leonard Krog, Dennis MacKay, Val Roddick, John Rustad, Claude Richmond, John Les

Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations
John Rustad (Chair), John Horgan (Deputy Chair), Ron Cantelon, Corky Evans, Harry Lali, Dennis MacKay, Shane Simpson, John Yap, Val Roddick, Rick Thorpe

Select Standing Committee on Education
John Nuraney (Convener), David Cubberley, Rob Fleming, Daniel Jarvis, Richard T. Lee, Norm Macdonald, Lorne Mayencourt, Doug Routley, John Rustad, Carole Taylor

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services
Randy Hawes (Convener), Bruce Ralston (Deputy Chair), Robin Austin, Harry Bloy, Dave S. Hayer, John Horgan, Richard T. Lee, Diane Thorne, John Rustad, John Yap

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Rob Fleming (Chair), Rick Thorpe, Harry Bains, Randy Hawes, Bruce Ralston, John Rustad, Bob Simpson, Ralph Sultan, Claire Trevena, John Yap, Claude Richmond, Olga Ilich]

That's the first motion. With leave, I do so move.

Motion approved.

REMOVAL OF LORNE MAYENCOURT
FROM SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. M. de Jong: The second motion relates to changes that arise as a result of the departure of Mr. Mayencourt.

Again, I have provided a copy to the Opposition House Leader and believe an agreement is here.

[1435]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call continued second reading on Bill 45.

Second Reading of Bills

ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AND STABILIZATION
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

S. Fraser: It gives me pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill 45, the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. Always a pleasure to speak in this House.

It is, unfortunately, the only reason, according to the government, that we are back in this important place, this people's House, for five days only. This meagre sitting is directed specifically to deal with this bill and one other bill, Bill 46, which we'll be commencing, I would assume, tomorrow.

I must say that the bill is a re-announcement of some income tax measures and such which have been accelerated. I suppose much of it isn't really controversial. But it is significant in what is missing in the bill. It is — I've heard the term used numerous times — underwhelming, considering the nature of problems in this great province of ours.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Obviously, the economic meltdown, as it's called, happening now — we saw it in its starkest form a couple of months ago — led the Premier to come forward with a ten-point plan. Then we did not come back to this House. The Premier had already cancelled the fall session, and the Premier then subsequently scheduled five days only, the very last five days of this fall session, to address his ten-point plan.

It's surprising how little urgency the Premier seemed to put on the economic issues of the day. Why he did not call us back immediately, why he cancelled the entire fall session, is still something of a mystery to me.

It's reminiscent…. I remember seeing a film clip of President George W. Bush when he received the announcement of the World Trade Centre attack — the first plane. He was in a schoolroom reading to students. He was given the notification of the attack, and he didn't do anything. He sat there and just let it happen.

In this case, we have a Premier that made an announcement and then waited a month to bring us back, on the very last five days of this fall session. How the Premier could not have noticed that there were already dire problems in this province….

I want to note that the Canadian Institute for Health Information, just today in Canadian Press, came out with their findings that link poverty to sickness. We've got the Stats Canada results from last week that put us, five or six years in a row under this government, as the province with the worst child poverty rate in the country, bar none. We now know definitively from the institute's work —
[ Page 13280 ]
and there was already, certainly, work done on this before — that poverty and poor health are directly related.

[1440]

We already have a crisis in the province, where one in four children is in poverty. So one in four families is in poverty under this government — I dare say engineered, in some ways, by this government — because the specific measures needed to address child poverty and turn that around have been…. We've seen the polar opposite from this government or no action at all. So how the Premier could suggest that there was no reason to come back except for his ten-point plan is unbelievable.

The ten-point plan, as I mentioned before, is significant in what is missing in it. There is nothing there to address that horrendous situation in this province of the worst child poverty in Canada and the effects on those children and their families, directly linked to poor health and hospitalization.

Wouldn't that be considered a crisis? I know for one in four families it is. Why did we have to wait for an economic meltdown south of the border for this Premier to bring this House back for his ten-point plan that omits addressing the dire conditions of so many children in this province?

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

It was ironic, Madam Speaker — we have many Speakers so far since I've been up; welcome, Madam Speaker, the next Madam Speaker — that the Premier chose the 20th of November to come back as the first day, five days from the end of the session. As I stated last week in this House on November 20, the opening day of this meagre fall session…. I noted that it was National Child Day in Canada, and I also noted that this province, British Columbia, this government, has failed children and failed to live up to the basic premises signed on by Canada in 1993 in accordance with the UN declaration on the rights of the child.

So how this government and this Premier could suggest there was nothing to do until Bill 45 came about is unbelievable.

As we see the surplus dissolve in these economic times and we see a continual juggling of those numbers — with some confusion, I might add, from the minister responsible — I can't help but think of how the mismanagement of this economy…. If that had not happened under this government, we would be in such a better place today.

Half a billion dollar overrun on a building, Madam Speaker. The Auditor General put it best: not because of building cost increases — those are built in, of course, in any proper management, business plan — but because of, largely, two reasons. The board of directors responsible were appointed by a Premier for reasons less than their knowledge or their skills in dealing with a project of that size, as the Vancouver Convention Centre.

That flagrant appointment system of a board of directors incapable of doing the job properly has cost this province and these taxpayers in British Columbia, in these trying times, half a billion dollars so far.

An Hon. Member: Say that in the corridor.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

S. Fraser: So we see where we've lost about, give or take, a billion dollars so far due to this economic global condition. That half a billion dollars in mismanagement would have gone a long way towards addressing that.

Of course, the Auditor General has pointed out numerous other things. The cost of the Olympics, which we see a Premier and a government still in denial about, is so many hundreds, billions of dollars, in reality, over budget.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Hundreds of millions of dollars. Check Hansard. Or billions.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. Order, please. The Chair would like to hear the speaker.

S. Fraser: I think it was over $2 billion that the Auditor General had. However, I note that the ministers across discount the Auditor General's and the Ombudsman's reports when they come out.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Well, you're very rude, Minister.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, take your seat, please.

Okay. Continue, Member.

[1445]

S. Fraser: My constituency in Alberni-Qualicum…. I note that in 2004 this government gave away the largest land giveaway in the history of the province: TFL 44 — 77,000 hectares removed from that tree farm licence, from public controls.

The minister responsible, who's now the current Government House Leader, at the time actually disregarded his own staff's advice who — I'm paraphrasing here; we've got the internal report — warned the minister: "You can't give
[ Page 13281 ]
the land back to the company" — it was Weyerhaeuser — "unless they were to compensate the Crown back." They were given huge considerations when they put that land into the tree farm licence.

So the minister ignored his own staff's advice to the detriment of central Island, the people of the Alberni Valley, and gave that land to then Weyerhaeuser for free. He waived all rights of paying back what amounts to hundreds of millions, if not a billion dollars, that would have come back to help the community of Port Alberni and central Island — the workers and the industry there.

As we see our surplus diminish to nothing in these tougher economic times, globally, you look back and see what that giveaway would have done, how that could have helped the people of Vancouver Island, the industry on Vancouver Island, the people in Port Alberni. It certainly would have helped to protect the environment and allow for other economic activities, if that land hadn't been given away. We're coming back with a bill that does not address the issues in my constituency.

Madam Speaker, I note — this is the second quarterly fiscal update — the surplus has gone in 2008-2009…. It's $450 million, plus the $50 million forecast allowance. So this is $820 million lower than the government's estimates in September.

If you combine the mismanagement of the convention centre and the waiving of economic considerations, the compensation back to the taxpayer from these massive land giveaways, you can get a perspective of just how much this government and their mismanagement of the economy has harmed British Columbians. Now those hundreds of millions of dollars from that mismanagement would have gone a long way towards addressing some of the needs that we have today.

I notice that no one on the government side is taking credit for the global meltdown in the economy, the collapse due to deregulation of, say, commodity prices and oil prices. However, this same government, the same ministers, like to take credit for high commodity prices during their term, as though they were actually able to somehow affect the world economic conditions and take credit for it.

Then, of course, they duck the issues and just say: "Well, it's a global condition now. There's nothing we can do."

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members, please. Order.

S. Fraser: So we have Bill 45 before us, again significant in the extreme for what is missing in it.

Hon. G. Abbott: Tell us some of the things that you'd like see in it.

S. Fraser: Well, yes, indeed, the Minister of Health is asking for my advice here. I appreciate that, and I'm sure he'll listen. I have alluded to some of the issues.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, please take your seat. Member, take your seat for a second.

Members, it's very difficult for the Chair to hear the speaker. Thank you.

Continue, Member.

[1450]

S. Fraser: As the economic problems globally loomed, we saw…. Well, we didn't really see anything from the government. We saw the implementation of a gas tax hurting a great many British Columbians and applied without any consultation, certainly to those most affected, certainly those at the lower ends of the economic ladder and industries like the forest industry, which I would note are already facing challenges due to, I guess, basically a spectator-type of analogy from this government, who watched silently as the core industry of this province started to fall apart a number of years ago under this government's policies, like large land giveaways, raw log exports, a total waste in the private managed forest land acts — that sort of thing.

Amending those bad pieces of legislation and those decisions would have gone a long way towards addressing some of the economic situations we have in the province today. As we had, give or take, a decade where we had commodity prices through the roof, and we actually had the American housing market booming too, we saw the disintegration of our core industry in this province and so many thousands of workers left as collateral damage under this government's management — or mismanagement, I believe it would be most appropriately.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Continue.

S. Fraser: I do note, Madam Speaker, that it does get a little more confusing with the reconfiguration of these chambers. When we start getting under the government ministers' skins, it's much more vivid and somehow, in some ways, gratifying having this, although the sword-length issue is still germane.

While we had the planning for a down…. Economic cycles come and go. This is, no doubt, an extreme…. I mean, it's being discussed as certainly a recession, recessionary problems across the globe and in Canada, but we do see economic cycles.
[ Page 13282 ]

When you have a boom cycle that is beyond, really, the province's control, then that's the time for prudent fiscal management. And the reason, besides the commonsensical reason for fiscal management when the times are good, is that that is the time to build. That is the time to prepare, because there will be that rainy day. We all have that in our own personal lives, in our own professional lives, and certainly the metaphor with the provinces is appropriate. We have to prepare for that rainy day.

The waste of this last decade when we see these great mismanagement fiascos like the Vancouver Convention Centre or land giveaways to companies that, you know, donated to the governing party, all at taxpayers' expense…. Those funds, that money, those resources could have done so much to prepare us for this time we are facing now — so much more than what we see in Bill 45. I know it's entitled economic incentive, but there are small measures here.

I have to note: I have a letter from the Union of B.C. Municipalities addressed to me November 17, so just a week ago. There's a great concern from…. For those in the audience and the gallery that don't like acronyms so much…. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has a convention each year. They represent all municipal governments throughout the province. We've just had municipal elections, so we have some new people there, but they speak as one here in their concerns for the complete lack of consultation around one of the measures being proposed, which is the freeze on assessments.

Some of us have been involved in local governments. Local governments should be very concerned about this government's lack of consultation here when they made this announcement. It won't go as any surprise to anyone in municipal governments. The UBCM's resolutions are roundly dismissed by this government anyways. They're usually ignored. No, that's not…. They're always ignored.

[1455]

In this case, the municipalities — the city governments, town governments, regional district directors — are responsible. They're the front lines when it comes to taxation for property taxes and, you know, the bearers of bad news. Municipal politicians often face pretty extreme criticism if there's a point where there's a necessity to raise taxes, for instance, or if there's an expectation made by an announcement from the Premier or a minister who wants to get a good news story out early without any work being done on it yet, that somehow this announcement will guarantee stable property tax rates.

That's like a promise that B.C. Ferries, if it's privatized, when it's privatized, will provide stable ferry rates. Remember that promise from the Premier early on when he privatized B.C. Ferries?

So this is another promise made that is going to have to be weathered by the municipal governments and mayors and councillors and directors.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: Even the members across the way — and the ministers who continue to heckle me — know that this government has downloaded so many costs and responsibilities on to local governments who have very scant ways and very few ways of actually finding any income. Property taxation is the main tool for local governments to actually get funds to run their communities, their infrastructure, to provide for the needs of the public in their communities.

When a statement is made to the public that: "Your rates are going to be frozen at 2007…." Well, that changed a bit, as I think the napkin got flipped over, and the plan was continued. It was made in a way that was going to create problems for these local governments.

If a local government has to…. I'll take Port Alberni, for example. It's a small city — industrial history, a proud history. They were forced in the last couple of years to cut industrial tax rates for fear of losing more of the forestry jobs, the mill jobs and/or losing that job security. So they did a significant cut in industrial taxes, and they've had to be very, very careful on how they manage the municipal finances to try to accommodate that.

Now we're seeing a situation where, with the local government's costs continuing to go up, they've already had to reduce their tax base to some extent, industrially. Now there's an expectation left because of this government's statements about what they're going to do with the tax assessments — that they're going to be frozen. There's an expectation that there will be no increase in taxation for homeowners.

But that may not be the case. It may not be the case. The municipal governments may have to raise mill rates to accommodate and accomplish what they need to provide for in their communities. So a misleading announcement of great concern. Certainly I'm hearing that from, well, the members of the UBCM.

Now, I know that that doesn't necessarily mean anything to the government members. But in reality, it should, because the UBCM represents local government, and local government are the people on the ground.

Some of the members opposite, on both sides, have been members of local governments. They know that their job in some ways is a tough one. They're in the community all the time. You know, a quart of milk at the grocery store can take an hour, an hour and a half, because people say, "Hey, you just raised my rates, and I was told by the Premier or by the minister that rates were frozen." So that does not help.

That's quite misleading for the public. They can be led to believe that they are going to have stable rates, just like they were led to believe that they would have stable ferry rates or that contracts would be honoured or any number of false statements that have been made.

[1500]

We need to look at where we are now. As we prepare for this new situation in the global economy, I do not
[ Page 13283 ]
believe anyone in this House believes that there's going to be a quick solution here.

Deregulation has done so much damage globally now to the economy, and we know, I think, the folly of that. But what we should have done is…. During the times when they were good, we should not have shut down the psych ward at the West Coast General Hospital. When times were good, we should have funded hospice. We should have provided core funding for hospice. The government's own reports say they should be supporting hospice and quality end-of-life care.

That was a time when there was a surplus. That's the time to build. These are important facilities. These are important services to our communities. When times were good globally and there was money in the surplus, that was the time to address those issues, and this government did not. This government has a very, very bad track record on education, on the costs to post-secondary students, the gutting of grants — while times are good. So what can the public expect now when times are bad?

We have a ten-point plan….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, please. The Chair would have hoped that the reconfiguration would have made for a nicer, cozier relationship. Anyway, please let the Chair hear the speaker.

S. Fraser: We have a situation where when commodity prices were high and the surplus was strong, we've seen mismanagement, government waste and, of course, the failure to build on education, the failure to build for seniors health and palliative care, the failure to build for West Coast General and Tofino Hospital. Last year they shut down obstetrics at the Tofino Hospital. It's a two-hour drive to the next hospital. That was happening when things were good.

So now when things are tougher, when the surplus is just disappearing before our very eyes, we don't really have a plan to address that. What are we going to lose now?

We can't get further on the list of child poverty. When times were good, this government created a situation where one in four children is growing up in poverty in this province. So now we're supposed to tighten our belts. You're telling the child in poverty to tighten his or her belt?

This government is not tightening their belt. This government is inundating the public with propaganda at their own expense, and that's appalling. This is supposed to be a time where we look for fiscal restraint. This is a metaphor for government waste, and it's a bitter pill.

You know how many people have come into my constituency office, ripping out a full-page ad that says nothing except lauding this great government, telling the one in four children in poverty in this province — orchestrated and engineered by bad government policy, this government's policy — and their families that are in poverty under this government that everything is great?

Well, I don't know how…. I know that tens or however much…. We haven't gotten a figure out of the Minister of Finance. He won't disclose how much the government is spending on this advertising, this crass political opportunism at taxpayers' expense, but I would submit that that money would be better placed trying to address child poverty in this province. That should have been in this ten-point plan.

[1505]

We'll roll back these obscene bureaucratic pay raises. We will cancel these plans to basically try to brainwash the public as they come into the next election, at taxpayers' expense, and devote that money, those funds, towards addressing things like child poverty — or to the West Coast General, reinstating the psych ward, or at the Tofino General, reinstating the obstetrics department.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: Obviously these are issues that the Minister of Health is very sensitive to.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Both sides of the House, please come to order.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: The Minister of Health has obviously got a heckle going now, because I've touched on some topics that are very sensitive to him.

I wonder if the Minister of Health was disappointed in the ten-point plan now that he's seen the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which directly links childhood health problems and adult health problems with poverty — poverty that this government has brought about under their reign. Under a time when they've taken credit for world commodity prices, they have failed the children of this province. It doesn't even make good business sense.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: If the minister across that's heckling me…. If he doesn't care about the dire situation of child poverty….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Always a pleasure to rise in this House.

Hon. W. Oppal: I rise to speak in support of this bill. Specifically, I'm going to deal with the amendments to the Court Order Enforcement Act that exempt registered
[ Page 13284 ]
retirement savings plans from seizure by creditors. It amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act to ensure that additional voluntary contributions to pensions are similarly protected and amends the Law and Equity Act to give effect to the beneficiary designation made when registering a tax-free savings account.

These changes protect registered savings, retirement savings, and further the government's economic plan. The legislation also anticipates the use of new tax-free savings accounts created by the federal government and ensures that beneficiaries designated in those accounts receive the funds as expected.

Madam Speaker, we are living in difficult economic times, and there is a concern — a real concern — that personal bankruptcies may appear to be on the rise. Many, many British Columbians do not have either corporate pension plans or government pension plans.

This is good legislation. It benefits many, many of our citizens. I want to make reference to an op-ed article that appeared in today's Vancouver Sun under the authorship of Miriam Maisonville, who is the president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

Last weekend I attended a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, and the membership there unanimously commended the government for this specific legislation that protects retirement savings from seizure.

[1510]

Ms. Maisonville makes the following comments:

"The vast majority of British Columbian workers, entrepreneurs, small business owners and professionals do not have access to corporate or government pension plans. They must save for their retirement themselves. Government policies, both federal and provincial, encourage these individuals to plan and save for their retirement through vehicles such as registered retirement savings plans. What many people do not realize is that up until now, pension plans were exempt from seizure from creditors, but individual savings through RRSPs, DPSPs, RIFs were not protected under B.C. law.

"This anomaly was recently righted last Thursday when the Minister of Finance…introduced legislation to protect those invaluable savings instruments from seizure by creditors through provisions in the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act."

The significance of the government's action is immeasurable. According to the government's 2008 Small Business Profile, small businesses in British Columbia represent 98 percent of all businesses, employ over 46 percent of the population and represent 33 percent of the province's GDP.

Many professionals are undertaking increasing responsibilities and new liabilities. Greater protection of their savings would not reduce liability but would offer some security that their retirement savings would not be at risk. Introduced by the government as part of a package to offset some of the difficult economic times we are experiencing, this measure injects fairness into the system and could not come at a more appropriate time.

Now, this is good legislation. This is good law. It benefits many, many British Columbians. It is somewhat regrettable that some members of the opposition during the course of this debate have ventured far from debating what the import of this legislation is, and I haven't heard any arguments against this legislation. Rather, some of the arguments that I've heard do not really pass the test of relevance. So in any event, I close again….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

Hon. W. Oppal: I recognize that relevance is a nasty word in some areas of the opposition. However, in this particular area I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that we confine the debate to the pros and cons of this legislation.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I heard the last speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair if anybody wants to address the other side. But members….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Order. The Chair is having trouble hearing the speaker.

Hon. W. Oppal: Madam Speaker, I did hear the last speaker. With the greatest of respect, it appears that relevance is a nasty word as far as that member is concerned.

In any event, I conclude by urging the House to vote in favour of this very, very beneficial legislation, which is clearly in the public interest.

C. Puchmayr: I see that this is a lively debate this afternoon, and I'm certainly looking forward to continuing on with my comments.

Certainly, this economy is starting to turn. The other side tries to say: "Don't worry. We're going to weather it. Everything's going to be fine." But today in the Vancouver Sun alone, 15 of the articles — almost half of the articles in the newspaper — were dealing with the economy. And it's not just the economy of British Columbia or the economy of Canada; it's the global economy.

You know, we've got the other side here who is taking praise for the global economy. They were taking praise for the price of copper and the price of oil and the price of resources. All of a sudden the economy has turned around. The economy is going down, and "Oh, it's everybody else's fault but ours. It has nothing to do with us."

So how do they deal with the economy? They decide that they're going to bring in a really short legislative
[ Page 13285 ]
session — I mean, really short. This economy was going beyond purgatory in a handbasket way before they called this session back.

And so what did they do? They called back a session that starts on a Thursday — getting everybody into Victoria for a Thursday, for one day, and then starting again Monday afternoon. Why didn't we start…?

Interjections.

[1515]

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Members, thank you. Debate will resume.

C. Puchmayr: I'm sorry; I didn't hear them.

So they call everybody down here for a one-day session. They could have called them down earlier. They could have respected the parliamentary calendar. They could have respected the calendar. Remember last May? They continued to bring in closure on legislation that was on the table. They continued to bring in closure, closure, closure. Unprecedented closure….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Members, the Chair is having a great deal of difficulty hearing the speaker.

Continue, Member.

C. Puchmayr: I guess, you know, if we're living in a democracy, and this side here is breaching the very rights of the elected officials, of people that are sent here to represent us in Victoria…. When this side is actually breaching, crossing the line and violating democracy by bringing in closure and shutting down the session in May….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask that you stay focused on the topic of the debate.

C. Puchmayr: Some of the concerns that they bring in closure. They don't even allow for committee stage on some of the legislation that they shut off debate on. When people in the province are asking us to analyze legislation that's on the table, to go into committee stage, to drill into the legislation, to find out what the government meant when they wrote the legislation, we don't even have the right to do that. They bring in closure, and the session is over.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

Member, I would ask you to please bring your debate to what's relevant in this bill.

C. Puchmayr: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. Second reading. I will bring it into relevance with the process of second reading.

Rather than have a full session starting at the beginning of October, they decide not to do anything. While the economy is going down, while the surplus is disappearing, while people are starting to lose jobs, while people are losing their investments and while seniors are losing their savings, they bring in this short session in a very peculiar manner, and then they bring in some legislation that really doesn't address a lot of the issues.

It certainly doesn't stimulate the economy. They bring in some legislation to bring forward some of the tax implications that were going to be a longer term. They bring them in now. They move the tax implications forward. Then there's an interesting one with the property tax assessments, which I will get into later, which is a very peculiar piece of legislation.

All this time, as the economy is going down, the Finance Minister is talking about how he's going to be able to stimulate the economy and how they're going to cut corporate travel, how they're going to cut consultant fees. Yet every day that you turn on a television or open a newspaper, there are thousands upon thousands of dollars, hard-earned taxpayers' dollars, that are being wasted on nothing short of propaganda by this government. Nothing short of propaganda.

This is how this government operates. They are using these ads to promote nothing more than themselves at a time when we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada, again. Five years in a row we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada. Back in the '90s we were the second-best place in Canada to raise children. We were the second place in Canada to raise children. Children didn't live in poverty at this level as they do today. So what have they done during a good economic time, during a time…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

C. Puchmayr: …when resources were at record highs, when copper was trading at extreme highs, when oil hit absolute record highs? What did they do about child poverty? Nothing. They worsened it.

[1520]

They brought in legislation that made it more difficult for single mothers, they made it more difficult for families, and they increased the level of child poverty. They cut out school lunch programs. They created more problems in the schools, especially for those that are affected by socioeconomic conditions.

They also brought in the worst child labour laws in North America — worse than in Pakistan — where a child as young as 12 can actually work in an industry
[ Page 13286 ]
35 hours a week with virtually nobody monitoring the working standards of that child. One parent….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.

C. Puchmayr: The Transportation Minister talks about paper routes. We're not talking about a lemonade stand or a paper route here. We're talking about a child working in an industry where they put their lives at risk because of chemicals, because of exposures, because of machinery. They put their lives at risk, and there is no monitoring by the government whatsoever — absolutely no monitoring by the government.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

C. Puchmayr: That's what this side brought to British Columbia. That's how they address child poverty.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Order. We'll continue when there's order.

C. Puchmayr: Twelve years old. At one time, if a child at age 12 had to work, there was a provision where the child…. The employment standards branch would be involved. There would be a permit that would be issued. The employment standards branch would go to the worksite. They would look at the hazards involved in the worksites. They would look at the child's curriculum to see if the education needs were being met, and then they would give the permit for that child to work.

The government made sure that that child worked safely in that environment. That's gone. That's gone. Now all it takes is one parent to sign a note saying: "It's okay for my child to work there." And then there's a….

Interjection.

C. Puchmayr: Madam Speaker, this is obviously hitting a nerve with the other side because they realize what they have done here. They realize what they have done to the children of British Columbia. That's how they address child poverty.

What happens now is that one parent signs a note saying the child can work in the industry….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please make your comments relevant to the issue in the bill.

C. Puchmayr: Absolutely. One parent signs a note that says a child can work in the industry — one parent.

Then there's a brochure that the Ministry of Labour puts out, which tells the parent to go and walk around the workplace and what questions to ask. Well, how can a parent be conversant on ergonomics, on health and safety, when those are courses that are taught in universities, where people take degrees in understanding how health and safety is applied?

There are people conversant in health and safety that work for WorkSafe B.C., that work for the Compensation Board. Those are the people that should be deciding whether or not this is a safe place for a 12-year-old child to work. It's gone. That is gone. That's how they address child poverty.

The Minister of Finance defends the promotion that this government is doing to themselves — you know, the self-promotion. We saw the medal the other day. We saw the big imitation gold medal that was given to some workers with nothing more than the Premier's name on it. A quarter pound of steel cast to promote the Premier? The Premier's own personal vanity plate — is that what British Columbians want during a tough economic time? No, they don't. They want to ensure that their tax dollars are spent prudently and efficiently and not on propaganda promoting the Premier. That's not what British Columbians want.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

[1525]

C. Puchmayr: They always think because we're actually being forthright about the economy today and about what's happening in the economy, about the concerns that seniors are bringing to us, that we're being negative — just like they did with the doctors in New Westminster at Royal Columbian Hospital when the doctors and the health care professionals spoke out.

When they spoke out about the concerns in the delivery of health care in my community, this government called them alarmists. Shoot the messenger. Just shoot the messenger. Don't look at what you've done to create the problem. Shoot the messenger. That's their style. That's the style on the other side.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

C. Puchmayr: You know, I think governments should be judged on how they perform during good economic times and during poor economic times — not just one or the other. This government has not delivered during good economic times. They have not delivered. They've let the free economy do it.
[ Page 13287 ]

We heard the former Small Business Minister, the new backbencher on this side now, speak about the great work that deregulation has done, about all the regulations that they cut. We go into the forests. We saw the 43 deaths that year in the forests. We went to the inquiry. We asked for a forestry coroner. We had an inquiry. What does the coroner say? The coroner says that you need to look at what you've done with deregulation. The coroner says that you have to look at bringing regulations back.

The safety regulations were gutted by this side, and the effects….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

Member, please sit.

Members. The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the speaker. I would ask each member to…. I know it's passionate debate. Everyone will get their turn.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

C. Puchmayr: Again, deregulation. Reckless deregulation for the sake of deregulating — absolute reckless deregulation. The member from Golden, myself…. We were in the Sullivan mines inquest, where the two paramedics sadly perished — and the two Teck Cominco mine workers. Again, you saw the system of deregulation and the misunderstanding and the ambiguity that that creates in the sector, where people don't know where they stand anymore.

Where you have two different health and safety codes that say different things, and you have a group of mine workers, and you have a group of paramedics that are under different pieces of legislation…. We could be here today combining that legislation and creating the best health and safety standards, for all workers in British Columbia, that are understandable and that are not ambiguous. But you know what? There's nothing to do. We don't need a session. We don't need to deal with anything like that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member. Just a moment, Member.

One speaker at a time. Thank you.

C. Puchmayr: I know it hurts the other side when they see how their directives that come down from the Premier's office are affecting the very people of British Columbia. The people that built this province, that are building this province, are so affected by what this side has done to British Columbia — during good economic times, I may add. During good economic times they have done this to the province of British Columbia. How sad.

What's going to happen now? What is going to happen now, as the economy turns? Are we going to expect worse? Are we going to expect worse from this side? It's so unfortunate. I can understand the other side squirming in anger here, because they're reading the polls.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

[1530]

C. Puchmayr: They ask what we're going to do about it. Well, we're going to do something about it. We're going to do something about it on May 12, and we're going to change this province. We're going to bring health and safety back to this province. We're going to build a standard that's acceptable to everyone.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

You know what's really interesting? Again, the former Small Business Minister, Madam Speaker, when the De Patie law came in….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, sit down.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Member, sit down.

Point of Order

N. Macdonald: We've sat here, and I'm embarrassed to have people watching this. For you to stand and say another member is disgusting, to hear members talk about lying…. These are people that have been in this House for a long time and know better.

My point of order is that I give the opportunity for that minister to stand up and apologize.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me.

Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Madam Chair, the remarks that the member made about those people that lost their lives working in the province of British Columbia are disgusting. They're disgusting to anybody that's listening to this
[ Page 13288 ]
stuff that this person is talking about. That's what it's all about. So I leave those remarks there.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Excuse me.

Members.

Sit down, please.

Minister, you do not have the right to call another member disgusting, so would you please apologize.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair, I will apologize for calling him disgusting, but I will say the words that he is saying are disgusting.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, you will apologize unequivocally.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: No, he did not, Member.

Minister, you will apologize unequivocally.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have apologized for calling the member disgusting. There is nothing in the rules that says that when a member talks about something like that, that it is not disgusting, the remarks that he's making.

I apologize for calling him disgusting. I'm saying that it's disgusting to have to listen to someone actually try to make political points off deaths of people that worked in this province of British Columbia. That's what's disgusting.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I've asked for an unequivocal apology. You've not given it, so I will ask you to leave.

Minister, there's no debate on the issue.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[1535]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have been paying attention to what's going on, and this isn't something that bodes well for the House as a whole. I understand that, in some respects, we have moved the debate away from the motion at hand into almost like second reading debate. But understanding that, there's absolutely no reason for people to be saying things, on either side of the House.

With that, I will ask the minister to withdraw the remarks without reservation, and we will proceed. But I am giving prewarning to both sides of the House that where we're going with some of this does not lend itself to the situation that we're faced with, whether it's in the province of British Columbia or in Canada or in North America or the world, with the economic crisis.

This is a serious issue, and I would hope that both sides of the House would take it accordingly. This isn't simply a debate where we're getting up on second reading and doing things.

So with that, I will ask the minister to unequivocally withdraw the remarks and take his seat.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through to the Speaker, yes, I unequivocally withdraw the remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Would the member please proceed.

Debate Continued

C. Puchmayr: Thank you for that, to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has sat with the families through three inquests and worked with a family on another of a young worker that died in the gas fields, it is….

Mr. Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Minister of Health.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the reasons I think why the frustration level at this House has been so very high has been that this member has not at any point during his remarks addressed Bill 45, the issue at hand. We have heard about a great many things, but I must say, we are remarkably frustrated that none of those things have been related to the bill at hand.

Mr. Speaker: Now, I remind the member to make sure you speak to the bill at hand. If the member continues to go in the direction that he's going, I will ask the member to take his seat and ask for someone else to start up.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm following up just to close my comments on that topic, as someone who has shared those….

Mr. Speaker: Member, you know, we've walked down this path. We've had an incident in this House, and I think that, in all fairness, you would move on to another topic, bearing in mind what the bill is all about.

Debate Continued

C. Puchmayr: To continue on, on my discussion this afternoon — on my debate on this bill. One of the other items of the bill that comes forward that I think is very puzzling and certainly has a lot of questions that need
[ Page 13289 ]
to be asked is the issue with respect to the deferral of property tax. And the issue, basically, with taking what was once quite an institution, the Assessment Authority, and bringing in legislation that allows for a very complex analysis of whether or not a property has a certain value or doesn't have a certain value.

[1540]

Certainly, I'm listening to the Union of B.C. Municipalities with respect to that, and I think their concerns are extremely valid. For some reason, I fail to understand why the government would bring forward this type of legislation, but I'm sure we're going to hear in committee stage when we have some further discussion on it.

So the municipalities set the mill rate regardless of what the assessed values are. The municipalities need certain amounts of moneys in order to function, to provide the services that the taxpayers asked for and deserve. What my concern is with this part of this legislation is that it will confuse the issue with residents and homeowners and property owners not only in my community but in all British Columbia communities.

Then as the cities adjust the mill rates so that they can have the dollars that are required to provide those very services that people need, people are going to be led to believe…. Right now, they're led to believe that there won't be tax increases in municipal taxes, and that certainly isn't the case with this bill.

All it does is sort of put a deferral to that, and one has to then wonder about the impacts of a true value of a piece of property. What is now an assessed value? When someone sells a piece of property at an assessed value, what is the true assessed value? And what is the lending institution going to do to ensure that when moneys are being loaned on the second mortgages or on first mortgages…? What is the lending institution going to do with respect to those values so that there is a fair market value for those properties?

It's certainly a puzzling piece of this bill, and I do think that the way it was announced was very suddenly. It sort of gave some people a warm and fuzzy feeling that this was going to be something that will stimulate the economy or will help as we go forward into this attempt to alleviate the pains of the crisis that we are in. Yet there's really, when you analyze the mechanics of how assessments work and how the institution of the assessment authority works…. When you analyze that, you understand that this is not a bill that is really going to put direct stimulus into the pockets of people. It is going to create some confusion and ambiguity, and that is certainly a concern that I'm hearing from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which have been around for a considerable length of time dealing with issues of property tax and evaluations.

In some ways, when you lead people to believe that something is what it isn't or something isn't what it is, that's kind of why we're here in this economic crisis today. You know, the stock market was accelerating, and stocks were selling at four times the value of companies in some cases. Promoters were promoting this as: "Buy into this, and you're going to make a lot of money." People's pension funds went into it, and then all of a sudden there's this reality check. Hey, wait a minute here. This can't go on forever. It's going to have to stop.

I think there's a name called a Ponzi scheme, a famous Italian immigrant who was the master of mail fraud and schemes back…. I think he passed away in the mid-'40s, and that term is still being used. It's a term where you're promoting something for more than it's worth. Eventually someone is going to be holding the bag. Eventually somebody is going to have to answer to the fact that this value really isn't there.

[1545]

We've seen that, and we've seen that through deregulation of our lending institutions, certainly in the United States, and some deregulation here as well, some self-policing of the stock markets, self-policing of the securities market. All you have to do is look at the famous people like Conrad Black that are now doing punitive restitution for their involvements in those types of schemes. It went back to Enron as well.

So, again, you know, this is a piece of legislation that sort of clouds the real issue. I fail to see how by deferring or by saying your assessment is frozen…. It's still the value of land. It's still the value of land that really dictates what the value of a resource is or what the value of an asset is.

So what will happen is that the land will have a certain frozen value, but then you have your choice between '07 and '08, and the banks, which are very cautious on how they're lending money today, may not agree with those assessed values. There's going to be a whole other system of formulating a value for those pieces of property.

The legislation to me doesn't really address the real issue, and the issue is that we need to be bringing in legislation that protects workers. We need to bring in legislation that protects jobs. We need to look at how we address some of the mines that are having difficulties today in British Columbia.

I know back when copper was pennies a pound, I remember Logan Lake, which is now a Teck Cominco mine. I remember the struggles up there, and I remember the NDP at that time worked very hard with the union. They worked hard with the utility providers. They worked hard with Teck Cominco, the mining owner, and they worked to put together a program that preserved jobs during a tough economic time.

We can't even do that in our forest industry when there were good times, when there were record housing starts in the United States, and mills were closing, and thousands and thousands of jobs were being eliminated. My community was certainly affected by that severely. So we could be here looking at how we can stimulate
[ Page 13290 ]
and deal with the crisis in the forest industry, and what we're doing is…. We're just seeing the continuance of log exports into freighters, into containers now.

One of our members in the north was telling me how puzzled he was that all these logging trucks were heading towards a mill that wasn't in operation anymore. Well, it's become a container yard. They fill the containers with logs, and they put them on ships, and off they go to China. They get reproduced as finished product there. That's certainly not value-added.

You know, the forest revitalization agreement needs to be dealt with, and this is the place where you deal with that. We're not seeing anything on B.C.'s primary, and what was once the biggest, industry that built British Columbia. We're not seeing anything with respect to how we come out of this with a vibrant and a strong industry so that we're ready when the market turns around, so that we're ready to go, and we have mills retooled, we have workers ready to go, trained and skilled.

That's not happening anymore. We've become a fibre farm for multi-nationals, and that's very sad. As someone who worked in the mills as a 16-year-old…. Many of us worked in mills to help us earn money for our education and raising families, and that isn't available anymore.

The other things in my community that certainly are affecting us that could be addressed here today…. We lost a hospital that was demolished in our community. We've seen that….

[1550]

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Minister of Health.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: With respect to the member, he is again drifting away from the bill rather dramatically.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member, with a reminder.

Debate Continued

C. Puchmayr: Absolutely. So there could be initiatives to create, to build, to add on to the hospitals. You know, farmworkers were hit hard in the last little while by bills brought in by this side, and this session could be sitting there looking at how we make it safer for farmworkers. How do we allow workers that have difficulties with English…? How do we allow them to access…?

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, don't…. You know, you're stretching it. Please pertain to the bill.

C. Puchmayr: Mr. Speaker, thank you. The log exports certainly weren't being addressed. The other thing in my community is…. This is a great time to provide economic stimulus for a new high school that we're trying to build in our community. We're trying to build a new high school, so this is the time to do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

C. Puchmayr: We could have shovels in the ground right now building that high school. We could be building it right now, but what's happening?

This is a great time to provide economic stimulus, and we're here to assist the government, to help them so that they can make the calls on some good economic stimulus that is required in our community.

I hope they're listening. I really do. I think they're listening a little bit, and I hope they are listening. They're certainly not heckling as bad now, so I'm assuming they're listening. We need to work together on this. We need to work together and make sure that when we come out of this, this province is ready to go. Those are my comments.

Thank you very much to this House for your….

Point of Order

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just a while ago in discussions, apparently the Chair….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Apparently the Chair had asked me to leave the chambers. No one at this end heard that request. I want to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to apologize to the Chair. I meant no disrespect to the Chair in her asking me to leave. It's just that I did not hear that request. So in no way did I want to disrespect the Chair, and I put that on the record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Debate Continued

J. Brar: When the economy goes down, the height of emotions go up, and that's what we see in this House.

You know, when I came here, it was in a few days that I met Vaughn Palmer in the corridor out there. He asked
[ Page 13291 ]
me: "How do you feel? How do you like the House, the debate we have in this House?" I said: "I don't like it the way it happens here." I said: "We teach different things to our kids: be nice, be gentle, and be rational in your discussion." He said: "No, no, no. What happens is that people out there are nice, whereas all the anger that people have comes out in this House."

Being a former player of basketball, with due respect to all the members, I would say this. As a player, we used to support our fellow players big time but in a respectful manner, and I think that's what we should do in this House when we debate these very important issues which are important to the people of British Columbia.

[1555]

As always, it's my real honour to stand in this House and speak for the people who have elected me as their representative from the area of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. So I'm pleased to respond today to Bill 45 that we call the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

If you look at the bill, the intent of the bill is to help the people of British Columbia walk through this difficult time that we have at this point in time as far as the economy is concerned. That's not a bad one.

But the people of British Columbia have already said that if you give people back $70 in their pocket, that is not going to cut it. That's not going to make a huge difference. That's not going to save the economy of this province. So this bill is nothing more than a dream, nothing more than feel-good news, as we see the announcement made by the Premier about this Bill 45.

Let's talk about the timing of the announcement. I was very surprised to know that the Premier of the province would stand up at 6:15 in the evening, during the prime-time news program, and make the ten-point announcement to the people of British Columbia — just one week before the very important by-elections we were facing in this province.

The Premier thought that he could buy the votes from the people of British Columbia by making the announcement just one week before the by-elections. The people of British Columbia…. They know. They understand the Premier very well. They know that the Premier is arrogant and out of touch with the reality of the needs of the people of British Columbia, and the people of Vancouver sent a very strong message to the Premier and the Liberal government. They sent two new NDP MLAs from Vancouver. In other words, the announcement a week before the by-election didn't work for the Premier.

This was not the first time the Premier made the announcement, the ten-point announcement, a week before the by-election. I had my own experience. The Premier did the same thing when we went through the by-election in Surrey–Panorama Ridge on October 28. The Premier stood up in front of the people of British Columbia and made the announcement that the Premier will give the traffic fine revenue back to the municipalities, thinking that they would win the by-election in Panorama.

An Hon. Member: Did it work?

J. Brar: And it didn't work at that time as well. The member is absolutely right. The people of Panorama at that time sent a very strong message to the Premier as well.

So my point is that this is not the time to play politics with this very serious issue that the people of British Columbia are facing. This is the time that we need the Premier to be sincere, to be committed and to lead us through this very difficult time we are facing in the history of the province — the bad economy.

The other thing I want to say about this bill is that the members sitting on that side are trying to manufacture the thinking of the people of British Columbia — that the economy has gone down because something bad happened on the other side of the border. Well, that may be partly true, but the economy of this province was going down for a long time. The people of British Columbia — the workers, small business people, the construction industry, rural community, forest workers and many more — saw this coming about a year ago.

People saw the housing market going down about a year ago. People saw the mills being closed in the province of British Columbia for about the last two years. People saw thousands of forest workers being laid off in the last two years. The people of Surrey saw the very important project for the people of Surrey, building the new hospital, being delayed time and again.

[1600]

The only thing people got from this government, from this minister — announcements after announcements after announcements. And finally, after seven years, the only thing we got is a model. It's a nice model, and that's what we got from the minister when we had a huge surplus in the province of British Columbia.

Who failed to see the economy going down? That was the member sitting on that side. It is not only that something went wrong on the other side of the border. It was because of the bad policies of this government that the economy was going down in this province. But they continued hoping that the wind of high commodity prices would continue blowing towards British Columbia and that they would get the credit for it.

If there's one thing I want to give credit to these members for, it's that they are masters in communicating to the people of British Columbia that the good economy is their creation, but the bad economy is the creation of Mr. Bush. They are not responsible for that. They are masters — very — in that communication to the people of British Columbia.

The reality is that this government failed to convert the red-hot economy of British Columbia into a good
[ Page 13292 ]
economy because of their bad policies, because of their wrong priorities and because of their one-sided approach. They failed to convert that hot economy into a good economy.

What we saw in this province, in the province of British Columbia, the rich province of British Columbia…. We saw child poverty in the fifth year in a row — highest in the country when we had the biggest surplus we can ever imagine in the province — a shameful title that B.C. has held now for the last five years. It's hard to imagine that in this province we now have 196,000 poor children — in this province — and these guys failed to see that. That population is almost the same as the entire population of Burnaby or the entire populations of Nanaimo, Kelowna and Williams Lake combined.

Let's talk about homelessness and what we saw during the last seven years — that the homeless have doubled and even tripled in many cities. In Vancouver alone we have thousands of people who are homeless because the government failed to build affordable housing, because the government made choices which were wrong for the people of British Columbia. We saw the same homelessness going up in the city of Surrey. Last year alone the homelessness in the city of Surrey had gone up 140 percent, and those people did not benefit from the good economy which we have had in this province.

So my point is that we did have a red-hot economy in the province of British Columbia, but this government failed to make it a good economy because of their bad policies, because of their wrong priorities, because of their one-sided approach, and because of their arrogance and out-of-touch approach.

I would like to talk about the ten-point plan the Premier announced just a week before the by-election. One of the points in that plan is that the Legislature will be called back to debate the ten-point plan. In simple language, this is not any plan to bring back the economy. This is a joke to the people of British Columbia.

As per their own set schedule of legislation, we should have been sitting in this House for about the last month and a half. The Premier telling the people of British Columbia that the Legislature will be called for five days — just for five days out of two months, to debate this very serious issue, to debate this very important issue. That itself tells how arrogant, how out of touch the Premier of British Columbia is that we have only five days out of that set schedule which…. We should have been here for two months, and that is one point out of this ten-point plan we are talking about today.

[1605]

The other point we have in this plan in Bill 45 is personal income tax cuts. The Premier wants the people of British Columbia to believe that this is something new. The reality is that this is just a re-announcement of the announcement made by the Premier in this House in the last budget.

The only thing that has changed is that they have fast-tracked some of the tax cuts, which were due in the future. That's the only difference we see in Bill 45. But giving tax cuts to the low-income family is not a bad idea. So we will support this part of the bill. But will this change anything for those families?

I think the people of British Columbia have already very clearly spoken — that if you give them 70 bucks more, that will not save the economy of the province. That will not change their lives in any way. People have made it very clear, and that's the bill we are debating here, which the Premier thinks and the Liberal government thinks will save the economy of the province. But the people of British Columbia are very clear that this is not enough and this is too little too late.

The other point in this ten-point plan is the tax cut for small businesses. Again, the Premier wants the people of British Columbia to believe that this is something new. This is not something new. This is just a re-announcement of the announcement made earlier in the budget. The only thing that has changed — and the minister is looking at me — is that one of the tax cuts which was due in the future has been brought into the present. That's the only thing that's changed — nothing else.

The small business community. Some 98 percent of the businesses in the province are small businesses. They play a key role in the economy of the province, and the minister should understand that. Particularly the Minister of Small Business and Revenue should have a clear picture about that.

Small businesses play a very important role in the economy of the province. They create more than 50 percent of the jobs in the province, and the minister should understand this — that the small businesses did not get any tax cut from this government during the first seven years. That's your record, Minister. They didn't get anything from your government during the first seven years. The only people who….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Brar: The only people who got the tax cuts were the corporations, big corporations, oil and gas companies, the banks, the people who give millions of dollars to B.C. Liberals — not the small business, not the small business people. This is the first tax they get during the last seven years…. We have a $4 billion surplus, and they offered nothing to small business people. That's the reality. That's what the reality is.

By the way, we are not the lowest jurisdiction in the country as far as the tax of small business is concerned. The minister is saying I should read more. The minister has difficulty, very serious difficulty, communicating to
[ Page 13293 ]
the people of British Columbia about his own one piece in this bill, Bill 45.

The minister is confused, and he made the people of British Columbia more confused. That's a very serious challenge in this part of Bill 45 — that people are very, very confused.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members, if you want to get up and speak, you'll have your opportunity to do so.

Continue, Member.

J. Brar: Coming back to my point that the small business tax is not a new thing. It's just a re-announcement in this Bill 45, and small business has been ignored by this government big-time during the last seven years when we have had good times. But now that the economy is going down, they are very, very concerned as to how this government is going to help them. This is a very serious question those people have because all the money we had in surplus has gone to the corporations, and that's what we saw.

[1610]

By the way, they got three tax cuts from this government — one the very first day, but there was none to small business people. The second one in the second budget, but there was none to the small business people. Then they got the third one — the tax cut they never asked for. But the small business people — they never got anything from this government until the end of the second term, and that's the reality.

The other point in this bill is that the capital projects will be fast-tracked. That day, the day the Premier made the announcement, the Premier had no information as to what capital project the Premier is talking about. The Premier said: "Oh, they need time to prepare the list." But now we are debating the bill, the actual bill which this government wants our support for. But they still don't have the information as to which infrastructure project they are going to fast-track. Which one?

Not even one do they have on the list, but I will tell them a few. The Leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that because we have high homelessness in this province, particularly in Vancouver and Surrey and other cities, the first thing we should start building is affordable housing.

We are committed to building 7,400 affordable housing…. That's the direction this government should be taking right now. The opposition leader has also said that we should fast-track the seismic upgrade to all of the schools so that our children are safe and so that we can create jobs.

The people of Surrey told me — and the Minister of Health probably will listen to me — that we should fast-track the construction of the new hospital in Surrey. The announcement has been made almost ten times. But what we got is a nice model. That was a very creative idea that at least you show a model to the people of Surrey, if you can't show the hospital. That's what they got.

So we don't have any information. A responsible government will provide the lists of capital projects which will be key to create jobs, which will be key to bring the economy back on track, but they don't have any vision. They don't have any list of those projects. That's a shame that even after one month, they've failed to do their homework and provide us with any list of those infrastructure programs that they want to fast-track.

One of the pieces in this Bill 45 — and we have the Minister of Small Business here — is that the government made the announcement that…. After losing two by-elections, the Premier stood up in the Liberal convention to make the announcement — which was handed over by the new Minister of Small Business to the Premier — that the government will freeze the property tax assessments. That was the announcement, and that's the piece we have in part of this Bill 45.

We and the people of British Columbia and UBCM and the homeowners have tons of questions on that one. There is absolutely total confusion any minister can create for any public policy communication. Absolutely. I don't know if even the minister himself understands what the benefits of this policy are to homeowners. The minister failed to tell us even one. The minister has completely failed in his communication to the people of British Columbia, to UBCM, to homeowners and to many other people about this public policy.

The interesting thing is that the minister was talking about this policy in the height of excitement on a talk show, and the talk show host was not some stranger but understands the business of this House. That was Christy Clark, who has been a Member of the Legislative Assembly and has been part of the cabinet. Christy Clark kept asking him a question: "I'm not sure. I'm not clear what you're talking about."

[1615]

At the end of the whole discussion, the minister gave up. To a former cabinet minister who should be able to understand the public policy very clearly, he said: "It's very simple. I don't know why you don't understand this." If that's the approach this minister has, how can he communicate to a layperson, to a person who just owns a house, about this policy?

The UBCM alone has some very serious questions about this policy. The first one: they're very, very concerned, Minister, about your policy that you're moving away from the market-based assessment system. This government was in love with the market-based decisions, but this government is going the other way. UBCM is very, very concerned about that. We have the best system in the country to make the assessment based
[ Page 13294 ]
on the market value, but that has been taken away. That independence has been taken away by this government.

The second concern they have, which is as serious, is the lack of consultation — that they did not even pick up the phone and talk to somebody on the phone. That's the way the policy is shaped by this minister — on the back of a napkin, nothing more than that. He failed to talk to anyone at the UBCM. The letter we got from the UBCM clearly stated that. They were not consulted at all by the minister.

The third thing they made very clear…. It's not my making. They said that they are totally confused about this. They're totally confused. They are totally concerned. They are scared about what the minister is saying, because it doesn't make any sense. They are scared because of the lack of clarity about this policy — that people will blame the local government.

As you know — probably the minister is aware — the UBCM represents all the local governments. That's a huge important body which represents a lot of people, a lot of local government. They have very, very serious concerns, and similarly, a lot of people have very, very serious concerns. And similarly, we as the members of the opposition have tons of questions. I hope the minister will give us some clarity at committee stage.

Hon. K. Krueger: If you would just let us get to it, that would be a pleasure.

J. Brar: Well, the minister said: "Let us get to it." As I said before, he failed to tell Christy Clark what it means by this policy, other than saying: "You should understand it anyway." So we don't want that answer here. At least the minister should be prepared by now.

The other thing I want to say about Bill 45 is that it is not that we need to wait a long time. If you read the newspaper, today Barack Obama, the President-elect of the U.S., has already started working on this issue, although he's going to take over next January. But this proposal has been here for almost a month now, and the government should start taking action and stop talking about the issues. The first thing they should start doing is stop the millions of dollars in ads they're putting just to say to the people of British Columbia how good a job they're doing. They should stop that right away.

A lot of people in my community…. They open the newspaper, and they say: "What is this? Why do we need to know this?" That the province of British Columbia is the best place to live? Not many people think that way. Go to Vancouver and ask those homeless people. They don't think that way. Go to the children, you know, who are living under poverty for the last five years. They don't think it's the best place to live.

So those people don't want those ads continuing when we have the economy going down so fast that in three months, the surplus went down to half.

[1620]

The second thing we're asking from them is that they should roll back these salaries — 100 percent salary hikes — they have given to the top executives. They should roll those back so that people of British Columbia start looking at this government — that this government is taking some actions. But on one side, they're giving 100 percent salary hikes to top executives. On the other side, this Premier and this government have constantly refused to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10, and that is a shame. They could not do that when we have $4 billion of surplus. Those people are worried now. Those people are worried about how they can get any increase now when the economy is going down. They are very, very worried.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Brar: The Minister of Small Business is worried about everything. He's very….

Interjections.

J. Brar: There are a few stories I want to share with you that I heard from people about Bill 45 and how it's going to affect the people of British Columbia. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I go out and meet a lot of people, and I hear a lot of stories from them. I would like to quickly share some stories with you.

The first story I hear from the people of Surrey is that we don't need…. We need a new hospital, not a new model. That's the first story.

Hon. G. Abbott: You heard that in relation to Bill 45, did you?

J. Brar: The Minister of Health is asking me whether this is related to Bill 45. Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just don't refer to members being in or out of the House, please.

J. Brar: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Surrey are worried that the economy is going down now. They were promised a new hospital, which was not built during the last seven years when we had the biggest surplus. The people are worried now, with this bad economy, about whether this government is capable to build that hospital anymore or not. That's the question people have, and that's a very general question. That's a very important question for the people of Surrey, where people have to wait for six, seven, eight or nine hours in the emergency room.

Let me tell you a story. An 11-year-old was bitten by a dog and went to the emergency room. She had to wait
[ Page 13295 ]
for six hours to get 40 stitches — 40 stitches. Think about how much pain she would have gone through, and the minister is talking to me that this is not related to the bill.

The second story I hear from the people of British Columbia is this. The second story I hear from the people of British Columbia, of Surrey, is to save our school. Once upon a time…. This is why the government is saying to the people of British Columbia that they would provide the best education system so that no child gets left behind. That was the promise these people made to the people of British Columbia.

But what they on the other side did after taking over is close 150 schools in the province of British Columbia — 150 schools — and one of those schools…. My community is worried about….

Interjection.

J. Brar: Bill 45 — the Minister of Health is worried about that. My community is worried about one of these schools that was closed in the community of Surrey-Fleetwood — the fastest-growing community in the province, in the country. They had some hope that they may be able to keep that school open. But now, because of this….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Coons: It's an honour to take the floor to talk about Bill 45, the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act.

Before I get to my comments on that, we have to realize how we got here. It all started back on October 22 with the Premier's ten-point plan.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

When we start looking at and analyzing the bill that's before us, there was great hope. There was great hope from many British Columbians, especially those on the north coast, that this plan — this napkin-made plan — would bring some relief to them.

If we look at the Premier's comments in here, the Premier says: "Today the world's financial system is in the grips of the worst crisis in 75 years. World stock markets are reeling…. However, we are going to act immediately to alleviate the impacts, to emerge stronger than ever." The result of this is 70 bucks in somebody's pocket.

[1625]

You look at some of the points that the Premier put forward, and we see some of them in Bill 45. You know, we're looking at the tax cuts and the tax relief, but there are a few that are noticeably not in there, and I'll talk about them later. That's the 33 percent reduction in ferry fares for December and January, a one-time two-month political relief package for ferry-dependent communities. It just doesn't work, hon. Speaker, and I'll get back to that later.

No. 10 on the list is: recall the Legislature. Now, here we are. We have a set legislative schedule, and this Premier decides back in May, along with the members on the other side, to cancel the fall session. No business to do. There's nothing to do, nothing to talk about — no legislation.

If we had taken the time to look at the bills that were before us last May, the eight of them that were rammed through this Legislature with no debate, no scrutiny, no accountability nor democracy…. Two of those bills…. One was dealing with the gag law that I think people are taking before the courts right now, and the other was the infamous carbon tax — the Premier's baby. No debate. No scrutiny. No analyzing. No thought.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please stay on topic and direct your comments towards Bill 45.

G. Coons: Yes. I will. Thank you, Speaker.

We're here to respond to the bill before us. Whether it's developed from the Premier's ten-point plan, the Premier's economic stimulus plan, whether it was sitting on a stool somewhere…. Who knows? Rewriting on a napkin. No thought. No reflection. We needed a full fall session to be able to actually analyze what we need to do and where we need to go, and this bill has fallen short.

So what we have before us, this Bill 45, in this mini-session of five days, as markets fluctuate beyond belief…. British Columbians are concerned about their jobs, concerned about their mortgages, concerned about how to pay their bills, concerned about where their next paycheque is coming from, what services are available to help them. Whether or not they're students, whether or not they're workers, whether or not they're seniors, whether or not they're the most vulnerable in our society, this Bill 45 falls pretty short.

We realize that for this bill, for this session, the Premier didn't want to be here. His plan for a fall session was, as usual, to do nothing. Sounds like the forestry plan — do nothing; sit on your hands; dither around. There's no business in this Legislature to do at all. No accountability. No scrutiny by those in the Legislature or by the public.

The only reason we're here with this Bill 45, which falls short for many British Columbians, is because of the extraordinary economic situation, the events that have happened over the last couple of months.

Now, if we analyze Bill 45 and look at it, there are some modest tax cuts that are supportable. There's the property tax deferral program. There are some ques-
[ Page 13296 ]
tions about that. As far as the deferral program, you know, the government has yet to estimate how much it's going to cost. It's rather vague at this point, and I can see why. You know, when the minister is out there looking at trying to rush through some good news and not putting full thought or full analysis into the bill, we can see why there are lots of questions, and many British Columbians are wondering what to do with their $70.

Another important aspect of the bill is the assessment freeze — an interesting concept put forward by the Premier. I don't know what corner of the napkin it was written on, but some of my constituents that I've talked about, who are doing their municipal service, have had major concerns about the direction.

[1630]

That's highlighted by, as we've talked about before, the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and their comments on this assessment freeze. They saw themselves locked out — no input, no communications.

UBCM say they were not consulted at all in advance of this announcement. As of November 17, they hadn't even seen an advance copy of the legislation. It's going to impact them the most.

They're concerned about moving away from a market-based assessment system. They're concerned about the lack of consultation, and they're concerned about how this bill is going to get communicated with property owners by this government.

But again, when we look at how this bill was developed, we can see the questions out there, and there are many of them.

The school tax reduction. Again, how is this to be determined? School boards — have they been communicated with, consulted with? How's it going to be determined? What effects will it have? How will it work? Will school districts lose money or any revenue at all with this part of the legislation? It's hard to say.

The latest in Prince Rupert is that they were concerned about the cutbacks to the literacy programs. The funding may not be there within the next three years.

It was about a week and a half ago or two weeks ago that we opened a StrongStart program at Pineridge school. Ministers were not there, and probably the reason ministers weren't there is because they knew that the funding would probably be cut for the 170 StrongStart programs throughout the province. We have no idea where this ministry or this government is heading as far as cutbacks to literacy advancements.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your seat. Can I remind all members that they must be in their seat to make comment, and we must respect the person that's on the floor.

Please continue, Member.

G. Coons: You know, when we look at the ten-point plan and we look at what happened with the — and I was going to be talking about this — ferry relief plan…. That's what's missing from this Bill 45. It was announced in the press release about the Premier giving this one-time, two-month political relief package. But nothing is in the legislation.

Again, I'd like to put on record some comments that were made out here, and this is a quote:

"The Premier's promise to restore service to some smaller coastal communities for the two-month period is welcomed by B.C. Ferries patrons.

"Now there's the bad news. There's a strong element of political opportunism at play here. The Premier and his Liberal cohorts seem more concerned about getting themselves re-elected next May than they are about B.C. Ferries, which is a vital link in the province's public transportation system. By unilaterally cutting fares rather than leaving such tasks to the supposedly 'independent' ferry corporation, the Premier is directly contravening his government's reason for privatizing the ferry system.

"'We will not be micromanaging the decisions of the ferry corporation,' says the Minister of Transportation. 'They are not there to make the decisions in the best interest of the politicians.'

"By jumping in and micromanaging, he" — the Premier — "is showing that he's lost faith in the B.C. ferry corporation he formed in 2003…. Victoria's experiment in trying to make B.C. Ferries run like a profitable company rather than operate efficiently as an integral part of the highway system has failed miserably.

"Instead of some temporary political posturing, the Premier should be looking for a long-term strategy to put B.C. Ferries back on a steady course as part of the highway system."

This is something that people have been saying for years. This was a Province newspaper editorial on August 31. So The Province editorial board saw this one-time, two-month political relief ploy as what it really was: political posturing.

[1635]

This does nothing to repair the damage already done. This highlights this Premier's lack of credibility and how completely out of touch he is with the real challenges facing ferry-dependent communities. That's what's missing in Bill 45. A two-month political ploy is not the answer for our marine highway.

All of this as this Premier fiddled around with pen and napkin. He had billions of dollars of surplus over the years to play with, and we became "The best place on earth" — at least for forest real estate companies we became the best place on earth — and we did become number one for child poverty in Canada for the fifth straight year. Bill 45. If we analyze it and look through it, there's nothing in there to deal with the situation of poverty and what's happening with children and families in British Columbia.

We've become the poverty capital of Canada for children. Shameful. Just shameful. What a position this government has got us into. Over the years, what Bill 45 could have done…. Bill 45 could have undone some of the damage that this Premier has done over the last seven years.

What has happened in the last seven years with poverty and children and families? Increased child care
[ Page 13297 ]
costs. Eliminated services for women in crisis. Cut supports for women in need. They eliminated the Children's Commission and children's advocate, which we do have back now due to pressure on the Premier and this government to realize what would happen with children in our province.

They eliminated core funding for women's centres. They gave the wealthiest citizens and corporations billions of dollars in tax cuts. They cut the minimum wage to $6 for new workers. They stripped contracts. They broke their promises to honour public sector contracts. They weakened the Employment Standards Act, and they repealed pay equity in the Human Rights Code.

The Premier and this government had a chance to take some action in Bill 45 and deal with some of the actions that need to happen — an action plan for poverty. But what we saw over the years from this government, who had billions of dollars of surplus from our resource industries and from markets that cause them to give us that much money…. We had mean-spirited cuts for the most vulnerable, making us the child poverty capital of Canada — the worst child poverty rate for the fifth year right in a row.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member. Member, please direct your comments through the Chair and to the bill.

G. Coons: Now, when we look at the Premier's stimulus package, Bill 45, there's a lot missing. When we look at what's happened over the years and we look at…. There's nothing that will give increased supports for families or the most vulnerable in our society. They had the opportunity…. This government had the opportunity to increase the minimum wage and abolish the $6 training wage….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct your comments towards Bill 45.

G. Coons: I'm talking about Bill 45 and the ten-point plan and what's missing.

Deputy Speaker: It's about the ten-point plan.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

G. Coons: Bill 45. What we have missing in Bill 45…. We've got the tax cuts that are there that they promised, but there's nothing on homelessness. There are 10,000 to 15,000 people living in a state of absolute homelessness or hidden homelessness. There was an opportunity. There was a good opportunity, and what we needed was a Minister of Housing.

To the credit of this government, they did appoint the Minister of Housing, but the mandate of this minister falls short. The minister, at this point in time, has not created an action plan to eliminate the crisis. They did not and have not reinvested in social housing programs. They have not supported local governments. They did not extend the social housing on existing sites. We need some accountability. We must look at protecting manufactured homes. We need to increase income assistance and the minimum wage.

[1640]

Now, also what was missing in Bill 45…. The opportunity was there to look at dealing with mental health and addiction services. In the riding that I come from, up in Prince Rupert — whether it's in Prince Rupert, Queen Charlotte Islands, the central coast, Bella Bella, Bella Coola or Stewart — there's a desperate need for help.

Just a couple of weeks ago I met with a young woman. Her name was Melinda Bergstrom. She's an addict. She went, she thought, with a friend to go out and have a marijuana cigarette, and she tried crack for once. Now she's been addicted for quite a few years. She's been clean.

About two weeks ago — she's been clean for three days, and for an addict that can feel like a year — she was in my office talking to my staff and to Myles Morreau, who is a street outreach worker in our community. She wanted to get some help, but she had to wait three weeks before she could get some services, before she could get some help. At this point in time she's still waiting.

That's something that in my community and in communities around the province, Bill 45 could have made an impact on. When we look at the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, that could have come in there to help stabilize some of the drug and addiction programs throughout the province.

This legislation, Bill 45, is a poor response. It will put a few dollars in the pockets of British Columbians — $70. There's no investment in our communities. Affordability is on the minds of many British Columbians, especially my constituents. We're talking about housing. We're talking about job creation. We're talking about child care, transportation investment and investment in infrastructure.

For seven years we had a boom, with our resource and industries on the up, and market prices brought in billions of dollars, as I said before. But little was invested in fighting poverty and dealing with homelessness and helping post-secondary students with their huge burdens of debt. Nothing for the forest industry. No forestry plan. Nothing for the Randy O'Briens of the world.

Randy O'Brien is from Port Clements. He's the owner of the O'Brien and Fuerst Logging company who time after time has asked this government and brought concerns forward about getting appropriate timber allocations to keep his workforce of 40-plus people working. But nothing in this Bill 45 alleviates the concerns of people like Randy O'Brien.

My colleague talked about my trip to the Nass Valley, when constituents of mine told me: "There are just log-
[ Page 13298 ]
ging trucks coming from Terrace into Prince Rupert." I said: "Aw, that's hard to believe. I see a few." But I drove to the Nass Valley two weekends ago, and in the 90-minute trip I counted 12 logging trucks going by me and going to a facility in Prince George — the old sawmill, the sawmill that has been dismantled and sold. These logs, prime logs, are being loaded into the containers — cut to length, cut to 20 feet, and loaded in containers to be sent overseas.

We need to do something. We need to do something about log exports and what we're doing to help forestry workers in the province.

Interjection.

G. Coons: Nothing. This Bill 45 could have helped and could have been an incentive for education, but nothing to address Bill 43 and the shortcomings of this government to deal with class size and especially class composition. Nothing for the schools.

Infrastructure — we talk about infrastructure. There's a school in Bella Coola — Sir Alexander Mackenzie, a secondary school. I visited it about three weeks ago. They had a flood. They have a continual river that runs through the basement of their gymnasium. They came to the gym one day, and all the floorboards were up. It's been in the process of being demolished. They need infrastructure funds for the only full facility in the whole Bella Coola Valley. Bill 45 could have helped in that.

Nothing for literacy programs. Apparently, they're being put on the chopping block. It's been reported by the Deputy Minister of Education that all present funding support for literacy programs will disappear over the next three years, as the existing funding has only been for implementation.

[1645]

What does that mean, as I mentioned before, for the 170 StrongStart that rely on the $30,000 for the operating costs? Will that disappear? We don't know. This bill does not take into account the moneys, the funding, that we need for education and health care and any infrastructure.

Seniors. I find it interesting that we had the House today filled with seniors, and nothing in there to deal with their concerns. I came across the B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organization and their newsletter dealing with seniors. They said, from the archive…. I'm quoting this; this isn't me; it's a little picture here: "How They Became the B.C. 'Fiberals.'" It says: "A B.C. Liberal government will fund health regions at a level necessary to meet the needs of the people who live there, regardless of where a service is provided."

Seniors are left out in this province. Seniors feel that politicians need to speak on their behalf, and this government has failed to do that, and they failed to do that in Bill 45. They have other concerns in this newsletter where they talk about P3s, which is a favourite topic of the government on the other side. P3s equal for-profit health care, and they do not agree with that.

Supposedly, these seniors are non-partisan, non-racial and non-denominational. So I think Bill 45 speaks strongly where this government is out of touch with what's happening in British Columbia, and British Columbians expected more from Bill 45.

There's nothing in here about the necessary infrastructure for Prince Rupert in the northern corridor — no infrastructure plan, no forestry plan, no revitalization plan. Now, there are some areas that realize the importance of Prince Rupert. The Port of L.A. understands the potential of Prince Rupert better than this Premier and this government. If this government wants to invest and build a gateway, they need to invest in the Port of Prince Rupert and the whole northern transportation corridor.

L.A. announced that they are basically putting a fee of $10 on every TEU. They mentioned specifically that Prince Rupert was the target because Prince Rupert had the potential to lure cargo away from the Port of L.A. What we have with this government is putting infrastructure dollars, billions of dollars, into a gateway down with the Delta expansion — where it's not wanted and where it's congested. Air pollution is going up, greenhouse gases, and this government should be investing in Prince Rupert versus paving over Burns Bog.

Just yesterday in the Globe and Mail they did an editorial about their advice to governments, and they suggested that any economic stimulus package should be on capital investments. In this editorial by the Globe and Mail the federal and provincial governments should concentrate on capital investments, and in here the first thing they talk about is, "Some of the undertakings could greatly facilitate trade," and: "Commerce in Asia would be promoted by multiplying the container capacity of the Port of Prince Rupert, B.C., with matching roads and railway tracks."

You've got Los Angeles concerned about losing traffic to Prince Rupert. You've got the Globe and Mail suggesting that both levels of government should invest in an economic stimulus package with Prince Rupert at the top of their list. But where's this government? Nowhere.

Bill 45, also with no infrastructure plan or package, has missed a great opportunity to do the Tsimpsean Peninsula fixed-link project. "It's too practical to ignore," says the ex-mayor of Prince Rupert.

[1650]

The outlying villages Metlakatla and Lax Kw'alaams need reliable transportation and a corridor if economic development is ever going to happen. This trade corridor — the Tsimpsean Peninsula, the fixed link project — could relate under the new relationship — whether it's the failed new relationship that we have. But it's something that this government could have jumped on and failed to do.
[ Page 13299 ]

Now, when we start looking at Bill 45 and the implications, there are many concerns. There could have been impacts in the health care system. Just this past week Stewart hospital has found out that their doctors are resigning, and the removal of three beds out of their hospital and a shortfall of nurses. This package could have alleviated some of the concerns in rural British Columbia, and it has failed to do that.

We start looking at maternity care in Bella Coola. Pregnant young women cannot have babies in Bella Coola. They have to get transportation, either a car or a bus, to Williams Lake 500 kilometres away. They have to spend at least three, four, five days a week to prepare for their birth, and then time afterwards — all at their own expense. That's a shame.

We could have looked at enhancing rural health care. As we move forward, time after time we've seen this government squander billions of dollars on pet projects and handouts for their friends. We've seen cost overruns on the convention centre that's not even complete. We've seen $560,000 for over-budget renovations at the Ministry of Children and Family Development head office. At the same time, we've got children going hungry.

At the same time, we have this stimulation package that does not meet the needs of British Columbians — except for putting $70 in their pocket. And hundreds of millions in benefits for this government's friends, whether it's the oil and gas companies, whether it's the banks — money that could and should be diverted to solve the problem of child poverty, to solve the problem of homelessness.

We're here looking at Bill 45, an incentive package to help stimulate the economy, to move British Columbians forward during this economic downfall, and what we have before us is a piece of legislation that fails to do that. Some sections are supportable, as I mentioned, but this bill is a weak response from the government. I believe that British Columbians were looking for more, and I believe that British Columbians deserve more.

On that note, thank you very much.

H. Bains: Right at the outset I say good to be back. Listening to the debate for the last couple of days, it is a real good feeling to be here, to get engaged in the debate on Bill 45.

I wish we were here at the beginning of October, because that's when this debate was needed. British Columbians were waiting and waiting and waiting for this Premier, for this government. When is this Premier going to wake up and see what's going on around British Columbia? To see if this Premier will take their issues seriously and put some concrete plans to deal with those issues that are looming on the horizon….

When we left here in May — end of May, last time — you started to see the signs all over in North America and in Europe that the bad days were coming. The economy in the United States has been on the decline ever since.

[1655]

People were losing jobs in America. Foreclosures were on the rise. Sawmills after sawmills right here in this province were closing. What did our Premier do? Instead of recalling the Legislature to talk about those issues, what did he do? He did nothing. Nothing.

As the economy was worsening in the United States and as people here at home were losing their jobs in communities that were forestry-dependent and in transportation, what did our Premier do? Hit them with a gas tax. He hit them without even a warning. He hit them not because it was needed; it's because our Premier wanted to show his hero in California that he can do the same thing, that he can follow in his footsteps.

The gas tax did nothing and will do nothing to climate change. It hit working families. It hit those people who can least afford it. My constituents in Surrey-Newton tell me that this gas tax is not fair. It is hurting working people. It's hurting small business, truck drivers, taxi drivers, taxi owners and rural B.C. and British Columbians who live in that area. People who actually need their vehicles to go to work and people who have no alternative way of transportation got hit with it as well.

In the Lower Mainland instead of providing them with a transit alternative, they came up with tolls on bridges, as if the gas tax wasn't enough. They made riding buses and SkyTrain almost out of reach for many of those who are still on minimum wage.

It takes about $10 from Surrey to Vancouver and back, and many of those who live in my constituency who have to go to downtown Vancouver are in the hospitality industry. They're in the janitorial business. If they take the SkyTrain to Vancouver, by the time they finish their shift, there's no SkyTrain. So they're forced to drive their cars downtown, and they are hit with the gas tax.

We are here to talk about a piece of legislation that is supposed to get British Columbians out of this time that we are facing — real bad economic times. Instead, what brought us here….

Working people and ordinary families continue to get hit by the policies of this government that made their living more expensive, and they receive less in government services. But at the same time, people at the higher end are being rewarded with high salary increases. Those are the people that they believe are the only people to look after.

But there are working families. There are people who are on paycheque to paycheque, and you know what? Many of them are in my constituency. Mostly they are working families. They go to work in the morning, put in their good, hard work. They pay their taxes. They're law-abiding citizens, and they go out and help their communities with their volunteer efforts. You can see them on the weekends with their kids on the playground.
[ Page 13300 ]

They are trying to make their communities better, but they are not getting any help from this government, especially now when they are expecting this government to stand up on their behalf. This government is failing them again.

[1700]

I looked through Bill 45 to see if there is anything there for my constituents that will help them through these tough times. You don't find too much — not much.

The expectation of people who are listening to this debate is that we will come out of this session at the end of this week…. Hopefully, they will be able to have their lives a little better, but I am not too optimistic, looking at the bill.

Then, when the banks and the lenders started to falter and our constituents were waiting for this Premier still, what did the Premier do? He said: "Everything is fine. Don't worry. Everything is fine."

When stock markets collapsed, where was our Premier? He decided to take a vacation. That's not leadership. Leadership is that you deal with tough decisions on time and decisively. This Premier was nowhere to be seen when our people were worried about their jobs. They were worried about their kids' future. They were worried about their communities, and this Premier was nowhere to be seen.

Just in the back yard of my community, Golden Ears bridge ran into financial troubles. As you know, one of the contractors couldn't get their finances secured. In the meantime, they had foreign workers brought over. Lo and behold, as soon as they landed here, they found the contractor had no more jobs at Golden Ears because that contractor could not secure finances.

That's when the leadership was needed, and this Premier was missing. Those foreign workers were sitting in a house, and the owner gave them an eviction notice because they couldn't pay the rent. My colleague from New Westminster, our Labour critic, sat with those folks in my office and tried to help them through the tough time that they were facing. Where was the government?

The government promised them: "Come down to British Columbia. We have all kinds of jobs here. Come down. Everything is fine here." When they came here, they had no jobs, no money, and this Bill 45 did nothing. If there was to be anything to do, we should have done that in summertime, not wait until the last week of this session so that we only have to stay here for five days. That's not leadership. That's running away from problems. That's not what British Columbia elected us for.

I was very upset when we were told that there was a cancellation of the fall session, at a time when people expected us to be here and talk about the tough times that they are facing. It made me even angrier when we were told the reason for not being here. The Premier said we had nothing to do.

The banks, the lenders were faltering. Record foreclosures in the United States, and somehow this Premier thought we had a wall around British Columbia and nothing was going to hit us. That's not leadership. That's when we should have brought the bill here. We should have been here working, for the very reason we are elected to this chamber — to work on behalf of our constituents.

When I talk about those foreign workers…. They came here with a hope. They came here with the promise that this is the best place on earth to live. When they came here, they saw quite the opposite, and the Premier wasn't anywhere around to deal with the issues that they were facing and their employer was facing. That is a shame.

[1705]

It just shows that the Premier is out of touch and that his approach is completely arrogant. He thinks everything is fine. As long as he and his friends are okay, everything is fine. But that's not leadership, again.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I remind you to direct your comments towards Bill 45.

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We need to talk about the expectations that British Columbians have, and they expect us to talk about the issues that worry them during these tough times. They're hoping that Bill 45 will deal with those, but they are also telling us, when we are in our communities, what they are actually expecting from us, and I want to bring those issues here that may or may not be in Bill 45.

We need to talk about those issues that they expect us to talk on, on their behalf. They have expectations in certain areas. They have expectations, when they saw themselves that at Vancouver's Olympic village the city of Vancouver had to bail them out with $100 million.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat for a moment.

Point of Order

J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I've been listening very carefully to the comments of the member opposite. I do not believe that they are in any way relevant to Bill 45. I would ask the member to come to order.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Surrey-Newton, please continue.

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, we need to talk about whether Bill 45 deals with some of the issues that people are facing out there, and that's what I'm trying to relate. Does it deal with the $100 million that the Olympic village needed and that they had to go to the city of Vancouver for, so that we could have that…?

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, take your seat, please.

The member for Chilliwack-Sumas, on the point.
[ Page 13301 ]

J. Les: Mr. Speaker, the Olympic village in Vancouver and the circumstances relating to that in no way relate to Bill 45. I think the member is completely irrelevant in his comments.

A. Dix: I'd just say to the member from Chilliwack that he has every right to take part in the debate. He should get up at the end of the speech and speak. Otherwise, these irrelevant points of order are hurting the way this Legislature is supposed to work.

Deputy Speaker: Would the member please continue, and try and concentrate on Bill 45.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: I'm trying, on behalf of the constituents, to see if some of those worries that they have out there with a project like the Olympic village in Vancouver, those types of issues, are being dealt with in Bill 45. At the end of the day, they are worried whether their tax dollars will be there to get them through this tough time, and we need to see if their expectations are met through Bill 45. I don't think they do, by and large. They don't.

The Premier continues to say, "Don't worry," even though the city of Vancouver was worried that they had to come up with $100 million to bail them out so that they could have that project continue on. If they don't, there will be more job losses. That's what their worry is. Does Bill 45 deal with that issue? I don't believe so.

It's very relevant to talk about those issues that those working people are facing every day. The minister may be in hiding, along with the Premier. He may not be listening to those people. Well, we do. We need to bring those issues here.

Our families are worried. They're worried about their retirement during these tough times. They're worried about their RRSPs. They're worried about their jobs. They're worried about their kids' future. They worry whether post-secondary education will continue to get funding from this government where their children are attending. They're worried about balancing their family budgets on their own daily basis, because they're worried about whether their jobs will be there tomorrow or not. Does Bill 45 deal with that? It goes partway, but it doesn't do the job. It doesn't do the job.

Finally, just maybe…. Perhaps it's coincidence. When Bill 45 was written, perhaps sitting in some lavish restaurant in downtown Vancouver on a very small napkin…. But we need to do something. The Premier said: "Well, let's do something."

[1710]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just one moment.

Could we please keep all side comments quiet so that we can hear the speaker who has the floor.

Please continue.

H. Bains: So the Premier, I guess, decided that perhaps we should do something, because too much noise was being made here and elsewhere. People are losing their jobs. But perhaps it's coincidence. It came in just in time, before the two by-elections in Vancouver. Perhaps it's coincidence, but I don't think so.

The Premier knew he was going to get a very strong message from two ridings in downtown Vancouver that he should be getting up and doing something on their behalf and not go on hiding. So he wrote a few points on the back of a napkin, as we have heard here before, but it delivered very little. It delivered very little to protect the jobs of the working people and their retirement.

That's what worries me. That's what worries everyone who is out there listening to this debate very patiently. They are hoping that something will come out of this debate at the end of this week. But you know, I must say that they will be disappointed. After we go through point by point of the ten points that the Premier has put out, they will be disappointed.

Let's talk about some of the expectations that the people out there have. They are hoping Bill 45 covers that. They're really hoping that Bill 45 covers those issues. They are hoping that the gas tax will be gone when Bill 45 is passed. They were hoping, but when I looked through — front, back, up and down — I didn't see any of that in Bill 45. So they will be disappointed.

They know, they are telling us, that it's a bad tax. They are telling us it hurts average families far more than the wealthy ones. They told us it hurts working people trying to keep their jobs. The Finance Committee, when it went around the province, heard from all corners of this province that it hurt big business and small business in all corners of British Columbia. But the Premier somehow wasn't listening or ignored that point.

Any economic recovery program or plan cannot be a recovery plan if it does not include a forest industry recovery plan. This Bill 45: does it have any mention of forestry, where we have seen over 20,000 jobs lost, 50 sawmills shut down in the last three or four years? There's nothing in there.

Mill after mill has gone down. Forestry workers lost their jobs. Forestry communities are struggling to survive. The Premier did nothing again. Once again he ignored the real need to bring recovery to this province by revitalizing the forest industry. He missed that opportunity.

British Columbians are expecting that this is the time when they're asked to tighten their belts, that we would also show some leadership in this House, that this Premier will show some leadership in this House. They expect that a 43 percent pay increase to its deputies
[ Page 13302 ]
would have been gone under Bill 45, but they will be disappointed. It's not.

Up to a 90 percent pay increase to the TransLink bosses. They were hoping that that would be gone, but it's not. I didn't see it in Bill 45. Has any one of you?

An Hon. Member: No. Still there.

[1715]

H. Bains: Still there.

They expect government waste to be eliminated. They are expecting those flashy ads in their local newspapers, on TV, to be gone. Did I see that in Bill 45? Have I missed it? It's not there. It's not there, so they will be disappointed on that issue as well.

Our war veterans were looking for some money here in British Columbia to celebrate their sacrifices. They were asking for something like $40,000 to $60,000 to have some of our war veterans, to remember their sacrifices…. British Columbia was the only province that refused to go along with that.

In the meantime, we have millions of dollars on ads. It just shows that this Premier is out of touch with the reality of the working people and with British Columbians. This Premier arrogantly said no to that request but continued to spend money, waste money, on the flashy ads of the government, just to give themselves a pat on the back.

Interjection.

H. Bains: My colleague over there talks about the hospital in Surrey.

People in Surrey are waiting and waiting and waiting to have some relief in a crowded ER and to shorten the surgery wait times. That hospital has been delayed and delayed and delayed. The ambulatory unit that was supposed to be up and running in 2009 won't be running in 2009. It won't be running until 2010 or perhaps 2011 now.

The emergency ward, where my colleagues have talked about experiences of Surrey residents waiting six, eight, nine hours under very painful conditions to get treated, will not be completed until 2011 either — another two-year wait. But in the meantime, this government funds a $500 million cost overrun so that the convention centre can be built on time. That just shows again how out of touch this government is with reality.

Convention centre — $500 million. "You need it? Cost overrun? You can have it so that it can be completed on time." At Surrey Memorial Hospital, where people are waiting six, seven, eight hours…. They're waiting for surgeries. They have to wait and wait and wait. That is a shame, and this government should be ashamed of its record.

As I said, there's no mention of anything to do with the forest industry.

Let's talk about some wasted opportunities when times were good. They couldn't deal with the homelessness issue. In fact, in those three or four years when the economy was booming due to the high commodity prices, homelessness actually grew. It doubled, more than doubled, in the Lower Mainland and also in Surrey. Child poverty is number one for five years in a row here in B.C., where we say it's the best place on earth to live, where our children are living in poverty. That is another shame.

We as a society and this government are actually judged by how we treat our citizens who are vulnerable — our seniors and our children. And this government's failing on both of those counts. There are people out there working hard, trying to keep their jobs going, trying to keep their families going, trying to keep their community growing without any help from this government.

[1720]

We have a sawmill. During the worst time, perhaps, in the forest industry that I have seen…. And I've been there for a long time — since 1973. These are the worst times that I've seen in the last three or four years. There are some folks out there that are trying to do their best to keep those jobs going, but this government isn't helping.

The MacKenzie sawmill in the Surrey-Whalley area. As my colleague from Surrey-Whalley will tell you, even during these tough times, they're running that sawmill on a two-shift basis, and what does this government do? They've put those jobs at risk by threatening to export the logs that they were depending on. If it wasn't for people on this side of the House that did raise that issue, those jobs would have been gone, and that would have been shameful for this government. That would have been a bad record for this government.

Again, it shows that Premier and this government how out of touch they are. People are trying to make it a go during tough times, and they're not helping. In fact, they are actually hurting them.

We have many of our seniors who chose to live in manufactured homes, and they are wonderful communities. These are the people who built this province so that we can boast to ourselves that this is the best place on earth to live. They're the ones who actually built this country and this province, so that we can boast about it.

But how do we treat them? When this government came in, instead of helping them and saying, "Thank you very much for giving us such a beautiful country," they cut their moving expenses almost in half. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? I sat in their living room, an 85- and 87-year-old couple crying. They were asking questions of this government: "What have we done wrong? We are about to be made homeless."

We tried to bring motions and private member's bills time and time again in this House in the last three and a half years. What did this government do? Ignore them. That's not leadership. That is a government with no heart,
[ Page 13303 ]
and that's not what we need during these tough times. There's nothing in Bill 45 to deal with that issue.

Just about three weeks ago, I had a symposium where the Minister of Housing was invited to come and listen to those folks firsthand. Over 300 people showed up with their walkers, on their scooters, to give us their concerns — that they are so worried about their homes and their communities. What did this government do? The minister chose not to show up and again ignored their plight.

We have a growing community, one of the fastest growing communities. We have young people who need to go for post-secondary education so that we can have the workforce that have the skills and ability to deal with the challenges of the coming few years. But they are unable to attend post-secondary education, because this government has made it almost unaffordable for them.

Tuition fees. I was on the Kwantlen College board in the 1990s. The tuition fee was about $1,100 for the year. Today I go back and I talk to those students. The tuition fee is close to $3,900. How many of them can afford it? Not too many. As a result of that, many of them are staying home or are taking jobs which are not what they'd like to spend the rest of their lives on.

With that, there's a lot of stuff…. But I do want to thank this House for the opportunity to deal with these issues. Hopefully, we will leave this House with some hope for those folks, but I'm not so optimistic.

[1725]

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to rise in my spot and contribute to this debate this afternoon.

I've sat and listened to a number of the comments of the members opposite, who, if they would read the actual global budget of government, would know that most of their issues have already been addressed with regard to homelessness, housing and issues in and around that. But they actually can't ever read a budget long enough to figure that out. So I thought I would help them through that this afternoon, in addition to walking through the ten-point plan, so each one of the members opposite could actually have an understanding of this.

Let's first of all start out by…. Let's talk about the reality of the situation facing the global economy today.

In the 1990s when I was in business, before I entered public life, I saw the economy and the business opportunities of British Columbia crash and burn — not because of a global effect by a global economy, but because of bad government in the province of British Columbia. I saw investment leave this province in droves. I saw no opportunity that we would ever have survived in any way whatsoever if there had been an economic downturn in the 1990s — because, quite frankly, the government of the day had no idea how to run a popcorn stand, let alone being able to run a government.

As I look at the situation facing us today, I think the first reality we should recognize is this. If you read, if you check the statistics, if you look at all the reports globally and internationally, there is a significant crisis taking place both on capital markets and lending markets — opportunities for job creation and opportunities for economies to be affected. I know you guys don't actually want to hear this, but that's a fact.

Now, as we go through that, we know that you can either be fortunate and live in a jurisdiction where a government for seven years has had a prudent economic plan for its province so it would be able to be in a better position to survive such a downturn, or not. British Columbians happen to be in the former position.

In British Columbia we're in a lot better shape than any other jurisdiction around us. In British Columbia we're in a position to actually take some leadership internal to our economy through our Finance Minister and our Premier, and we're able to put some stability in place for people in our province to actually move through this period of time.

I know that the members opposite eventually are going to have to get down off that sort of pillar over there and at some point in time decide whether they're going to support this piece of legislation in second reading, in committee and in third reading. If you listen to them, they don't support it. They have a lot of negative comments about it, and they have a lot of concerns. The concerns are always valued in a parliamentary democracy, where we allow for reasoned debate.

But I do think, you know, when I sit down with my constituents — and I did, after the Premier's economic statement a few weeks ago, with a number of them…. I started to talk to them about what we'd done. They were pretty surprised and pretty impressed that we were in a position to do it as a province, considering what the pressures are in other global economies around us.

I'd like to know, quite frankly, what the NDP has got against unlimited deposit insurance, protection for people who have money in B.C. credit unions. My impression, listening to these guys opposite in the last couple of days, is that they don't actually support that. They will vote for it, but they really don't support it. They would actually like to see more capital bleed out of our jurisdiction, because they want to be able to say: "Well, we didn't support that because we don't believe in it."

I want to see what they have to say about the accelerated retroactive personal income tax cuts. Goodness knows there have been 103 tax cuts in British Columbia in the last seven years, and they voted against every single one of them. They voted against the 25 percent cut that we gave to people to keep more money in people's pockets so they could make their mortgage payments and raise their families and spend their money.

They voted against income tax cuts and corporate capital tax cuts because they actually believe…. This was their philosophy in the 1990s. They actually — imagine
[ Page 13304 ]
this — taxed people's capital to make investments in a financial area in a jurisdiction to create jobs. They taxed that investment, to actually push investment out of a jurisdiction and send those jobs somewhere else.

That's what you did. We got rid of it. Guess what happened. Tax came back into British Columbia. Income investment came back into British Columbia, and over the last seven years we've had the best record of job creation of any jurisdiction in the country.

[1730]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I know that it upsets them. I know that it's bothering them that a 5-percent personal income tax cut is being brought forward into this fiscal year so that people, when they go and they file their income tax return in the new year, will have some other disposable income to spend on their children and their families.

I'd like to see if they're going to vote for that. That would be a shock to me, because they don't actually believe in income tax cuts. They actually only believe in increasing taxes and never reducing them. They actually believe in doing fiscal plans which tell the province and people of British Columbia that all we're going to do is increase spending so that we can tax you more down the road and break your family and take away your opportunities. That's what they believe in.

The third point to the bill, to the plan, is to accelerate tax relief to the small businesses of British Columbia that create one million jobs in this province. A million jobs — I'd like to see you vote for that. Now, every other tax cut for small business has been actually voted against by the members opposite, so they don't actually support that. Maybe they had an epiphany on the way to Damascus, but I doubt it very much.

I actually believe that they're just going to say they voted for it because they had no choice, because they were afraid to tell the people of the province of British Columbia the truth, and that is that they don't support tax cuts. But they didn't want to have to look them in the eye and say: "We also don't care about your future and the economy of the province of British Columbia."

On the industrial property tax side, I think it's such a great move. You know what? I heard members opposite yesterday say: "Oh, this is no good. Where are they going to find the money for schools? I mean, after all, if they reduce the school tax to the industrial sector, they're going to do something to schools."

Go look at the budget, Members. Go look at the budget. The budget has money in there for education. The budget has money in there for health care. The budget has the money in there to do this.

So in actual fact, this is prudent because somebody was smart enough and capable enough to manage a budget of a government so that when a tough time hit we could do something creative to help our sectors in British Columbia.

I found quite interesting the issue in and around the property tax roll assessments from the members opposite, because it really showed me that they really should go take either the real estate course or the Urban Development Institute course, where they can actually find out what that means. The comments around it in this House yesterday showed me nobody had a clue over there what that actually meant.

The financial hardship property tax deferral program. I actually had somebody stand up in the House yesterday and say: "Well, this is going to break somebody."

Well, excuse me. We've allowed this in this province for a long time. Even in the NDP era we allowed property tax deferral. We said that in hardship we're going to allow these people to do it. They don't have to pay it back. No collector is going to walk up and knock on their door two years from now and say: "You owe us this money." When they're ready to pay it, and they can afford to pay it, they can do so, or they can defer it until such time as they sell their house and move on.

What's wrong with that? You don't like that? You don't like the fact? You don't like helping people? It's amazing to me.

You know, if you have an RSP in this country with a life insurance firm in Canada that's not self-directed, it has always been creditor-proof. Always been creditor-proof, even from CCRA. Even from Revenue Canada, as we like to call them.

So what we say is: "Look, in tough times maybe we want to protect people's savings. Maybe we want to protect their retirement savings by actually giving them protection from creditors who might want to come and take that one thing that they may need later in life for their retirement." And I think, quite frankly, that's good public policy. Boy, one of the members yesterday in this House — you would have thought the sky was falling.

As we do this today, and as I've listened to these discussions, I wanted to touch on a couple of subjects. I wanted to read something into the record — two things, actually.

[1735]

It says: "Recently the news media have provided increasing coverage of Statistics Canada's low-income cutoffs and their relationship to the measurement of poverty. At the heart of the debate is the use of the low-income cutoffs as poverty lines, even though Statistics Canada has clearly stated since their publication began over 25 years ago that they are not."

Now, I've heard them talk about child poverty over there. Now, let me finish. Another quote: "Decisions on what defines poverty are subjective and ultimately arbitrary. Given this, Statistics Canada has always referred to low-income cutoffs and low-income measures as indicators of the extent to which some Canadians are
[ Page 13305 ]
less well off than others based solely on income, and as such are low-income and not poverty measures."

Now, interesting about this is that one is a Stats Canada.…

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: One? Oh, I'll get to that.

One is a Stats Canada quote from 1997, and another is a Stats Canada quote from 2008.

Now, let's talk about this for a second, because these members opposite always want to bring this up and always want to make people feel that governments don't care about those who are less well off in our society. So let's set the record straight.

Let's start, first of all, with the fact that there is one government in the last 15 years that has actually raised welfare rates in British Columbia. That was this government.

Let's go secondly. There's been one government in the last 20 years that's actually raised the shelter allowance in the province of British Columbia. That was this government.

There is one government that's actually gone out and changed the tax rolls so that we don't tax people.… People making under $16,500 in British Columbia pay no income tax. They did not have that luxury prior to 2001. In British Columbia people making under $30,000 a year pay the lowest income tax level of any jurisdiction in Canada.

Statistics Canada will tell you directly — because I've asked these people: "Do you measure things like a rent assistance program?"

Let's set that record straight. In British Columbia today there are over 7,000 households — 7,000 households — receiving rent assistance in communities all across the province of British Columbia. An average cost to each household paid is $350 a month.

The members' opposite public policy is: "We don't like those. We don't support those." They would throw those 7,000 families out on the street without any subsidy to rent. I'd like them to think about that when they start to talk about that publicly, because…. Let me tell you a couple stories.

Lady walks up to me at an event. She says, "You know, you told that story about that lady Savannah who's a single mother with a child 12 years of age, who wrote you and told you how the rent assistance program had changed her life" — how it changed the outcomes for her son and for her, how their nutrition was better. He could now play sports, because he quietly got a cheque every month to offset their rent and make their choices.

She said to me: "I have six children. Six children. I couldn't afford where I was living. I was moving into a station wagon, Mr. Minister." She called me by my first name actually, hon. Member, and you know what she said? She said: "You saved my six children's lives. We have a place to live. We can afford to live there now, and today…. You saved our lives by that program."

So there are 7,000 families on that today.

Now, I heard the member from Burnaby yapping at me just a second ago, so I thought maybe we should clarify it, because that member from Burnaby wants to not have this program. He's yelling at me. He doesn't like the program.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Members. Member.

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's take Burnaby for a second. Just for the member's information, there are 4,889 units of subsidized housing in Burnaby at an annual cost paid of $18,456,574, and that….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: What? Whoa, here we go — see? I know. I am about to tell you something even more impressive, hon. Member. More impressive.

[1740]

There are 699 seniors' households in Burnaby receiving rent assistance every single month. That's $1.459 million a year. We changed the formula so more seniors could get rent assistance under SAFER.

And how about this? There are 542 families, hon. Member — families that you would throw out on the street and not continue to give them assistance, because that's what you are opposed to — at a cost of $2,000,249 a year for that rent assistance. And there's another 7,100 units under development in construction in Burnaby alone.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh, my friend from Surrey also has some interjections. My friend from Surrey doesn't want to admit to the fact that there are three sites under an MOU with the city of Surrey to build supportive housing for people with mental health addiction and homelessness, doesn't want to recognize the Phoenix House that has recently opened in the city of Surrey, doesn't want to recognize the fact that there's a new sobering centre about to be constructed in the city of Surrey for people with mental health and addictions and homelessness to the cost of millions of dollars.

But let's help him with the rest. There are 4,206 units, in addition to that, in the city of Surrey for an annual subsidy cost of over $24 million.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, we need to hear the speaker.
[ Page 13306 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: So in Surrey there are 1,177 seniors households receiving SAFER, a huge increase. You know what? You don't believe in that program, so you'd put them all on the street. That's what they would do in the opposition. They don't believe in rent assistance.

There are 728 families — just like that young woman I just mentioned, single mother with a child, or the mother there with six children — in Surrey receiving almost $2.4 million a year in subsidy so that they can live in a place and have their rent subsidized within the community.

You know what? It's clear. They've always said we only see rent assistance programs as subsidies to landlords; we don't believe in those. Well, you don't believe in them, so you'd actually get rid of them. So you'd throw 7,000 families and 15,000 seniors' families out on the streets — 22,000 families — and in those 7,000 households are about 20,000 children that you would turn your back on because you don't believe in a program like that. That's shameful.

As we go through this…. They talk about homelessness. I just really do have to take a second to, you know…. They say it's not in the bill. So they think it's sort of interesting to them, I guess, that it isn't, but maybe it's because there's been so much done that they really don't understand.

The member from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant wrote me two years ago and asked me to see the Carl Rooms — one single-room-occupancy hotel in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. So what did we do? We bought 17 buildings in Vancouver — 17. We bought a total of 31 buildings across the province of British Columbia, invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the buildings to renovate them and bring them up to standard and have turned them into supportive housing for people with mental health and addictions and people that are homeless on our streets.

We also took $41 million and took all the shelters — which, by the way, are double the amount of shelters in 2001 — and gave them funding for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and included a meal where they wanted to do it. We put outreach workers on our streets who last year alone took 2,500 people that were homeless in the province of British Columbia and connected them to housing with supports, and 85 percent of those people are still — still — housed today.

We've invested in other forms of addiction treatment and other forms of residential care, all because we believe in the fact that we need to do this for our people across the province.

Just so they get it with Bill 45 — where they were very concerned there was nothing in there for homelessness — the budget for housing has gone from $120 million to over $400 million today.

[1745]

You can find those numbers, and you can find them in the budget, and it hasn't been cut. It continues to be delivered, and it's the most aggressive and most successful housing strategy in Canadian history.

As we go through these little issues with these folks across the way, I'm always struck by the fact that they…. I think they measure things in cutting ribbons instead of helping people. I think they believe you should build a building and cut a ribbon, and the problem is solved. I don't think they actually understand that, whether it's Savannah or whether it's the lady with six children or other people that are helped by actually stepping up to the plate to change their lives, it makes a difference.

So let me give you another example. A mother says on video to me. She says:

"I have two children, two daughters. One went one way; one went the other. One went to the streets and alcohol addiction and the sex trade. I lost her. You folks came along and got her a room in one of our hotels where there are supports to help the person go through the 12-step program, to help them with meals, to help them with their addictions and their mental illness and their health issues."

So what are the outcomes for that one person? The year previous to going into that particular facility, the individual had been in hospital 89 times — 89 times. In the last year, three times. The mother says: "You gave me my daughter back."

You can measure your platitudes, you can measure your rhetorical comments, you can make all the comments you want about lists that you want to blow up in numbers and whatever the hell the difference is, but the fact of the matter is that every single day in the province of British Columbia outreach workers and housing stock that's being developed and delivered today are changing people's lives one person at a time, which was the objective of Housing Matters when it was put in place in 2006, and it is being successful.

So if you don't like the fact that in the ten-point plan somebody didn't say something about housing, take an opportunity. Go to the Internet. Go look at vignettes. Go look at the statistics. Go read Housing Matters B.C. You'll find that there's a housing strategy in cooperation with communities all across British Columbia.

We have MOUs for new sites signed in Abbotsford, Surrey, Campbell River and down in Victoria and Nanaimo and a number of these jurisdictions across the province — all for a few thousand units of housing. They're all going to help us deal with the issue of homelessness, mental health and addictions.

You can't put it in one word — homelessness — because there are mental health issues and addiction issues. There are literacy issues. Individual person — each needs a plan of help, and that's why we went to moving people and resources, to helping people versus people as just resources going to cut ribbons.

As we've made those changes, I have seen lives change. I'm glad to put the record of this government up against any government with regards to the plans, the projections
[ Page 13307 ]
and the already early successes that are taking place in housing.

I actually do want to hear from the members opposite at some point in time — maybe they'll do it in the budget next year — when they're going to stand up and be honest with British Columbians in saying: "We're going to get rid of close to 23,000 of you folks who receive some form of subsidy to offset your rent in British Columbia. We're going to shut you down, and we're going to change your life back to where it was."

So you want to send the mother with six children back to thinking she's going to live in a station wagon, because you really don't understand the empathy and the importance of programs that deal with people and not bricks and mortar. That's all I've heard for the last two days — people saying there's not this in the budget and there's not that in this particular economic plan.

Frankly, members, the reason we're able to do the ten-point economic plan is because we already had an economic strategy for the last seven years. It put us in a position to expand education, health care, advanced education; to be able to do things for children and families and increase the budgets across government for people; and actually, even in these tough times, hold those budgets for the future of people in this province.

[1750]

What's the alternative? Well, I saw the Leader of the Opposition get up and talk about how she's going to put another billion dollars in taxes on the backs of people and how she's going to spend all this money on things.

I even did a financial analysis on her "housing plan". She only missed the mark by $1.5 billion in capital in her plan. I don't know where she got her figures from. I don't know where she can build on the square footage cost that she thinks she can, but she can't. But she actually came out and said: "Here are the numbers, and we're going to the housing endowment fund, and this is going to pay for all of this." When you do the numbers and you know what's going on in the marketplace, you're out by $1.5 billion. So $1.5 billion, another 1.5 billion in tax…. Where is the money for health care, education and children? Where's the money for a rent assistance program? It just doesn't exist in any strategy that the members across the House have.

So let's think about the people in this province. The people in this province need leadership. They get it from here. The people in this province need good fiscal management. They get it from here. The people in this province need a housing strategy that makes sense to people. They get it from here.

The people in this province, at this time, need to know that somebody is thinking about them, and that's why we have a ten-point plan that actually protects their deposits, gives them protection against a number of other aspects of life, including protecting their RSPs. We accelerate their personal income taxes. We actually go out to the employers of those folks who are in the business community, like small business, employing a million people and say: "Here's some help, because we want you to sustain the jobs you have and know that there's a future for you in the province of British Columbia." That's why we're doing this.

So sometime in the next number of days, we may for the first time in history see a member of the NDP vote for tax cuts. We may actually see them stand up and recognize that the reason the province of British Columbia will sustain itself through these tough economic times better than anybody else will be because of the leadership of the B.C. Liberal government. They will actually stand up and show the people of this province that they've seen the light, that they actually care about people, rather than sitting back there thinking about how they can run you into deficit, tax you to the hilt, never balance a chequebook and never deliver on a program that they committed to, versus everything being delivered from this side of the House.

M. Sather: I rise to speak to Bill 45, the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. It was really interesting to hear that little speech by the Minister of Housing and Social Development. I noted that he has a particular aversion to the opposition talking about homelessness. He said that it's just a word, just one word, and that you shouldn't talk about homelessness. In fact, he went on to say that….

An Hon. Member: Everything's fine.

M. Sather: Yeah, it's all fine. It's wonderful. Be happy. Don't worry; be happy.

He also talked about the low-income cut-off measure for determining who is poor and who is not poor. He said that it's not relevant to the discussion on homelessness. He, in fact, said that it's subjective and arbitrary. Those are the words he used — subjective and arbitrary.

Well, I would invite the Minister to come to Maple Ridge and tell the people that are walking the streets because they have no home that their life is simply subjective and arbitrary, that it's not real what they're experiencing. The fact that they have no home, the fact that the number of homeless people in Maple Ridge has doubled in the last three years…. But, hey, it's not real. The minister says it's just a subjective and arbitrary matter. He doesn't want to talk about the real problems that are facing these people.

You know, he mentioned the issue that, well, people are addicted. People have mental health issues. That's true, and that is part of the problem, of course, that contributes to homelessness.

[1755]
[ Page 13308 ]

An Hon. Member: He's trying to understand that.

M. Sather: He's trying to understand it, I guess, but one has to wonder whether, in fact, he really does care. I don't think he really cares, because if he did, I'm sure he would prevail upon his government to bring some detox services to the north side of the Fraser River. We don't have any. There are no detox services….

Hon. R. Coleman: Point of order. Through to the member, at no time did I say what the member is saying. I actually read into the record a Stats Canada quote. It's not appropriate that the member should accrue that quote to me personally when I read it into the record from Stats Canada.

M. Sather: What the minister said, and he can come back and….

Interjection.

M. Sather: Very jumpy, very sensitive.

What the minister said is that the measures were arbitrary and subjective. That is what he said. I don't know if he wants to get up and say that he didn't say what he just said, but he should go and check Hansard, because that's in fact what he said.

Now, it's no surprise that the members in this House feel that the members in that House don't care about homelessness, don't care about addiction, don't care about mental health issues in Maple Ridge. Otherwise, the Premier would, when he came to Maple Ridge…. When the Premier came to Maple Ridge….

Interjections.

M. Sather: You're right, Member. I understand what's making the government member so jumpy and edgy and irritable today. They're very irritable because they've read the polls. They've heard the poll today.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. Sather: Yes, Madam Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 45.

M. Sather: Bill 45 is about this government's lack of response…

H. Lali: Total lack of response.

M. Sather: …total lack of response to the crisis that this province is facing. The fact that….

H. Lali: No response; no response.

M. Sather: No response at all. The fact that they're about to be dumped in May I'm sure has some effect on their demeanour here in this House.

But what we're looking for is something more. We're looking for a response, and we're not seeing it in Bill 45. That's the problem. The minister a minute ago tried to get up and explain that there was a response, that they do care, but it's not there in fact.

Bill 45 does not have a response, does not deal with the issue of homelessness that has doubled in Maple Ridge under this government, does not deal with the issue of addictions. We don't have detox, not only in Maple Ridge. We don't have any in Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam or Port Moody either. Yet the minister comes into the House and says: "Don't worry; be happy. It's not a problem."

Well, it is a problem, and we would have liked to have seen it addressed in Bill 45. We would have liked to have seen this government say: "Yes, in fact, we recognize that there's a very, very serious problem with homelessness." First of all, to recognize that there is such an issue as homelessness and not to argue about the measurement of it. The people are there on the street. The objective evidence is there, and this government does not recognize it.

This government does not care. If they did care, we would see some detox services on our side of the river, but we don't. We don't. The Premier comes to Maple Ridge, but it doesn't help us any, because he's not bringing the relief that we need.

I think we have to look at the response of this government — or the lack of response — to the economic meltdown that's being experienced and that's unfolding — the tragedy that's unfolding before our eyes.

[1800]

Why is it that the government, first of all, didn't want to deal with it at all? Everything was so rosy that they said: "We don't need to be in the Legislature." We all know that they merrily rammed through a bunch of legislation last spring so that they wouldn't have to be here this fall.

Then, when the Premier looked at the polls, he said: "Oops, maybe I ought to do something." So he came up with his magical ten-point plan, which is the reason, I guess, we're here discussing Bill 45. It's apparently a response to the Premier's ten-point plan, as limp-wristed as it may be. It's a major oops.

Interjection.

M. Sather: The member from Chilliwack is sniping from the opposite side. I hope that he will get up and….

An Hon. Member: Yapping.

M. Sather: Yeah, you could say that.

I hope that the member will get up and speak to this bill as well. I'm sure he will do a better job of explaining to British Columbians why Bill 45 does not address the
[ Page 13309 ]
issue of homelessness in this province. I'm sure he'll do that. We're waiting with bated breath.

The question that I have is: is this government actually prepared to deal with the crisis that we're facing? Understandably, they're in a bind. The polls are bad for them. The election in the spring is looming. They have to do something, so they brought us back to this House for Bill 45.

But the problem runs deeper than that, because this government has bumped along since 2001, one bump to the next, with a set of beliefs that have led us to where we are today in terms of their lack of response to the crisis before us. The government is depending on the free market economy and apparently has been, so they say, since they were elected in 2001 to deliver the goods.

The problem is — and it's clearly observed in the United States and I'm not sure so clearly here in this province by this Premier and this government — that the free market is just not so free anymore.

What we've seen over the course of the last number of years is amalgamations, takeovers. In fact, that leads not to the competition you're supposed to have in a free market system but to quite the opposite — a lack of competition in the system.

The problems have unfolded from there, and Bill 45, I maintain, doesn't address these issues. A big part of the reason is because of the government's ideology, because of their beliefs.

The costs of the bailouts in the United States are astronomical. The same people that have promoted the corporate agenda so avidly have now got their hands out big-time for bailouts. That affects us here in British Columbia. The government knows that. We are dependent on our major trading partner, and yet the government seems to be frozen. They're caught, like the proverbial deer in the headlights, not knowing what to do.

We've seen huge bailouts. Citigroup, the largest financial institution in the world, is now on the dole, and it goes from bad to worse. I don't think the Premier is being straight with the people of British Columbia about the depth of the problem, if he understands it.

An Hon. Member: He's out of touch.

[1805]

M. Sather: He's certainly out of touch. And he doesn't care, because Bill 45 is not the kind of response that the people of British Columbia are looking for to deal with the issues that we have.

This government has been riding the gravy train of high commodity prices the last number of years, and that has lulled them. They've been telling themselves: "What great fiscal managers we are. Everything's wonderful. Look at the surpluses we have."

An Hon. Member: Look at the health care situation.

M. Sather: Boom — and then what happens? The commodities start to fall, the prices start to plummet, and this government is panicking. They're frozen by panic. They haven't a clue what to do, and they never really did have. They never really did have a plan. They never were, in fact, great money managers. They were great at riding the gravy train of high commodity prices. That's not that hard to do.

Not only is this government incapable of looking ahead to the problems that face us in this crisis, they're also incapable of looking with any degree of clarity at the past. The member for Kelowna–Lake Country in his comments yesterday, ostensibly to Bill 45, made that very clear.

And he's not the only one. The member for Okanagan-Westside repeated one of the mantras that I've heard from this government the last three and a half years when talking about the NDP when we were in government, saying: "Oh, they went from first to last." First to last is what he talks about continually and what this government talks about continually.

So it's hard to understand how this government, which can't look in the mirror and can't look down the road, can be entrusted to deal with the crisis that's on our hands now.

Well, let's just have a look at the equalization program, which is a measure of have and have-not provinces — provinces that are receiving being have-not provinces — and let's look at the history from 1993 to 2005-2006.

In 1993-94 the province of British Columbia received zero in equalization payments. In '94-95 the province of British Columbia received zero in equalization payments. In 1995-96 the province of British Columbia received zero. In '96-97, zero. In '97-98, zero. In '98-99, zero. In '99-2000, $125 million and 2000-2001, zero.

In those eight years of an NDP government, we were a have-not province, on the dole, one out of eight years.

Now, let's have a look at the record of this government. In 2001-2002, their first year in office, they received $240 million in equalization payments. In 2002-2003 they received $71 million in equalization payments. In '03-04, $320 million in equalization payments. In '04-05, $682 million in equalization payments and in '05-06, $590 million in equalization payments.

[1810]

Every year for those five years this government was on the dole. They were a welfare case. A have-not welfare case, and yet they say that they were great money managers. How could they be? They were on the dole. They were on the dole. But they can't see that. They can't see that because, as I said, they have no capability of looking in the mirror and actually assessing where they've come from, what they've done.

Bill 45 is the Premier's, I guess, best effort at dealing with the financial crisis that's before us. I don't know. Maybe we're going to have an extended session, and
[ Page 13310 ]
he's going to come up with a "Bill 47" next week. I hope so. It's certainly needed, and the Premier, I'm sure, will have had time to reconsider his lack of planning. I mean, people have….

Members in the House, particularly, have repeatedly talked about this ten-point plan that the Premier came up with being done on the back of a napkin or on one side only of the napkin, and it certainly looks like that's the case.

But again it comes down to a matter of faith. Can you have faith in a government that can't see forward and can't see back? Let's look back at what happened in 2001-2002, because this government always wants to look back, always wants to look backwards — not very clearly, but they always want to look backwards.

In fact, let's go back one year further to 2000-2001, the last year of the NDP government. There was a surplus of $1.5 billion that year. What happened the next year? Well, the province went into deficit — $1.6 billion into deficit — the first year this government came into office. That was followed by a budget deficit of $3.2 billion the next year, the largest deficit in the history of this province, by this government. These are good money managers? I'd hate to see what a bad money manager looks like.

Interjections.

M. Sather: The members opposite are saying: "Look in the mirror." Well, that's what I think this government should do, because looking in the mirror would also entail looking at Bill 45. It would entail looking at homelessness and the lack of response from this government to the issue of homelessness. There's no indication whatsoever that they, in fact, care despite the words of the minister most recently.

When this government came into office…. You know, tax cuts have their place, but this government completely blew it when they came into office with their tax cuts. They drove this province into deficit territory, and it resulted in the horrible cutbacks to services that this province suffered through — fiscal mismanagement by this government. Fiscal and social mismanagement by an uncaring government, or I should say, perhaps, not uncaring — maybe just a ham-fisted government, ham-fisted and uncaring.

Well, the government is in disarray. They're in disarray. They're on the ropes, They're praying for better weather. They're praying…. I don't know what they're praying for. They certainly aren't recognizing the financial mess that we're in with this bill.

R. Chouhan: Praying for mercy.

M. Sather: Praying for mercy, but the people of British Columbia are not feeling very merciful at the moment. They're worried, rightfully, about what's going to happen to their homes. They're worried about what's going to happen about their jobs. They're worried about the number of homelessness on our streets. They're worried about a lot of things, but there's no indication that this government cares or that they're worried about it.

So what are the other underpinnings that this government has depended on through these eight years, or whatever it is that they've been in power now, that we've heard repeatedly about?

[1815]

Well, privatization has been a big theme. It was sad to see the response of this government today when there were people here in trauma, worried about themselves and their families, about losing their homes, their care-home home. All the Minister of Health had to say was: "Well, you know what? It wasn't up to snuff. We had to fix it up, so we are going to get rid of it."

I've seen this movie in Maple Ridge. It happened there too. We had a wonderful care home in Maple Ridge. Golden Ears Retirement Centre was renowned for caring, and it sounds like the same things I've heard about the care home in Surrey. It sounds like it's a very caring place as well.

So why does the government…? Why are they so determined to fix something that isn't broken? Because of their ideological agenda, Madam Speaker — that if it's privatized, it's better. But that's not the case, and how can a government that's so misled lead this province out of the chaos that we're in? They can't, and that's the problem.

That's why they've come up with Bill 45, which is not up to the mark. It's not going to deal with the problems that we have.

Again, I just have to say that it was sad to see what happened in Maple Ridge when they turned over Golden Ears Retirement Centre to Retirement Concepts. I had people that took their parents out of that home because the care declined so significantly.

But to hear the government have those people come to this House and talk about the trauma that they're facing with their loved ones being moved, where 10 percent die — I think one of the members today used the word "lost" — from a move from one facility to another.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That's serious stuff, and surely a government that's caring, as the Minister of Housing and Social Development says they're caring, certainly would have had a different response than what we saw today from the Minister of Health and the government at large.

The other part of the agenda that I worry so much about with this government, because it's not putting them in a place to be able to deal with the financial crises that we're facing now and Bill 45 does not deal with, is the P3s, the public-private partnerships.

We had a scare about the Golden Ears bridge in our neighbourhood. Who knows how bad it was, but when
[ Page 13311 ]
it gets into the local paper, you know that it's bad. They were concerned about not being able to meet their financial obligations, not obtain the financing that they needed to complete that bridge.

Well, we all hope fervently on our side of the river that the bridge that's two-thirds of the way over will get the rest of the way over. But if the P3 fails, the people of British Columbia know who will come to the rescue. They will — at a time when they can't afford to come to the rescue of any failed government project. TransLink has already made it clear that they will not let that bridge fail, that the taxpayer will pick up the tab if need be.

That's another worrying thing for me, and I just don't see how Bill 45 is going to deal with the concerns that we have over the P3s — another part of the ideological agenda of this government.

[1820]

Then the former Minister of Small Business and Revenue — and deregulation — went on again at length yesterday about how wonderfully they've done in cutting regulations. Why would he get up at a time like this, when deregulation has caused the chaos we're in, to brag about deregulation? I don't get it. I don't think the former minister gets it. He talked about all the red tape he's cut and how wonderful it was.

We've seen them cut the regulations in streamside protection, for example, and I spoke yesterday about what the role was for the member for Maple Ridge–Mission in that. This government is totally inept, and the Premier doesn't care. Otherwise we wouldn't get….

I looked at this bill and said: "Is that it? Is this it? Is this all this government's going to bring forward to deal with a real crisis like we have never seen before?" I don't think any of us here in our lives, even the oldest among us, have ever seen anything like what we're facing now, and yet the government, though, is stuck. They don't have the ideological capability of dealing with the crisis, and Bill 45 certainly shows that.

So let's look at the ten-point plan that the Premier brought in, because that's where this all stems from. The Premier brought in a ten-point plan, and he had several suggestions in here, including accelerated public infrastructure — No. 7. Well, certainly there are things that the Premier and the Minister of Transportation could do in my constituency. We have a real need for a new interchange at Harris and Lougheed Highway because there's a real backlog of traffic, and those that commute know that every day.

The Minister of Transportation did come to my constituency this fall, and he gave a speech at the chamber of commerce event. That speech was great. It was a fantastic infomercial. It went on for a whole hour. It reminded me a lot of what we see on TV that this government is putting out there now. Yet at the end of the hour he said, "But I'll bet that you people here in Maple Ridge want to hear about the Lougheed Highway," and all the hands went up. "Yes, Minister, that's what we want to hear about. What are you going to do about the Lougheed Highway?" And he said: "Well, you know what? We've got a little bridge we're going to put in, in Mission."

D. Chudnovsky: I do note the hour, Mr. Speaker. I would take 30 seconds or so, before I make the customary motion, to greet you on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Kensington. It's great to be here again in the House and with you in the chair. I think, though, that the people who I represent would have liked for us to have been here earlier and for me to have the opportunity to greet you a month or six weeks ago, because they certainly know and understand that the issues facing the province, even before the economic crisis, were significant. They would have wanted you and I and our colleagues here to get together much earlier.

With that, hon. Speaker, noting the time, I move adjournment and reserve my right to speak again tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Are you going to move adjournment of debate?

D. Chudnovsky: Yes.

D. Chudnovsky moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the service plan 2009-10 to 2011-12 for the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175